Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (1.17 seconds)
Documents citing Uoi Thr. Secretary Ministry Of Defence vs Indian Navy Civilian Design ... on 2 August, 2010

Life Insurance Corporation Of India vs Cce Mumbai - Ii on 11 September, 2020

6. It would appear from the impugned order, as well as the contentions advanced by Learned Authorized Representative, that recovery has been premised on the hypothesis that subsequent inclusion of a portion of the consideration, hitherto excluded, in the assessable value by expansion of definition of taxable service or by fresh enumeration unveils the existence of exempt service for which consideration has been received by the provider of service. Ex facie, this proposition is liable to be rejected for it rides on retrospective ST/85986/2015 6 application to deny credit; unveiling of the past from a subsequent enactment to foist detriment on tax assessees is not within the empowerment of tax administration. Neither is such a test for coverage within 'exempt service' enjoined by law. Considering that it has been held in Indian National Shipowners' Association and Anr v. Union of India and Ors [(2009) 4 AIR Bom R 775] by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, and duly affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Indian National Shipowners' Association and Anr [2010 (14) SCC 438], that no taxable service can, by inference, be presumed to exist until specifically enumerated in section 65 (105) of Finance Act, 1994, this proposition advanced by, and on behalf of, the adjudicating authority fails the test of judicial confirmation. Consequently, the inference that the service described in section 65 (105) (zx) of Finance Act, 1994 is a bundle from which one has been isolated for tax till 1 st May 2011 is also not tenable; this should have been amply evident from the absence of a new entry to describe such service identified for levy of tax. Neither does the tax on 'management of segregated fund' in section 65 (105) (zzzzf) of Finance Act, 1994 with effect from 16th May 2008 obtain support for it as this freshly incorporated taxable service is a fiction designed by law through a deeming provision. Hence, it is abundantly clear that the expansion of the taxable value through the two amendments supra did not bring new services into existence. Even if it did, the subsequent existence of such service could not enable assumption that these were exempted till then.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Idbi Federal Life Insurance Company Ltd vs Commr Service Tax- V Mumbai on 6 January, 2022

by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, and duly affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Indian National Shipowners' Association and Anr. [(2010) 14 SCC 438 = 2011 (21) S.T.R. 3 (S.C.)], that no taxable service can, by inference, be presumed to exist until specifically enumerated in Section 65(105) of Finance Act, 1994, this proposition advanced by, and on behalf of, the adjudicating authority fails the test of judicial confirmation. Consequently, the inference that the service described in Section Service Tax Appeal No. 87098 of 2016 9 65(105)(zx) of Finance Act, 1994 is a bundle from which one has been isolated for tax till 1st May, 2011 is also not tenable; this should have been amply evident from the absence of a new entry to describe such service identified for levy of tax. Neither does the tax on 'management of segregated fund' in Section 65(105)(zzzzf) of Finance Act, 1994 with effect from 16th May, 2008 obtain support for it as this freshly incorporated taxable service is a fiction designed by law through a deeming provision. Hence, it is abundantly clear that the expansion of the taxable value through the two amendments supra did not bring new services into existence. Even if it did, the subsequent existence of such service could not enable assumption that these were exempted till then.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Planetcast Media Services Ltd vs Ce & Cgst Noida on 9 February, 2024

In the present matter, we are not concerned with the merits of Shipowners', which was affirmed on appeal by this Court in Union of India v. Indian National Shipowners' Association and Anr. 2010 (14) SCC 438 = 2011-TIOL-05-SC-ST. This Court explicitly restricted itself to the interpretation of Section 65(105)(zzz) while leaving the other observations on interpretation of the law, "open to be considered at length at an appropriate stage". 2010 (14) SCC 438 = 2011- TIOL-05-SC-ST, para 7. We note however, the analysis of Section 65(105)(zzzzj) of the Bombay High Court, where the High Court observed:
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sahara Sanchaar Ltd vs Ce & Cgst Noida on 30 August, 2024

In the present matter, we are not concerned with the merits of Shipowners', which was affirmed on appeal by this Court in Union of India v. Indian National Shipowners' Association and Anr. [2010 (14) SCC 438 = 2011 (21) S.T.R. 3 (S.C.)]. This Court explicitly restricted itself to the interpretation of Section 65(105)(zzz) while leaving the other observations on interpretation of the law, ―open to be considered at length at an appropriate stage‖ [2010 (14) SCC 438, para 7]. We note however, the analysis of Section 65(105)(zzzzj) of the Bombay High Court, where the High Court observed :
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 50 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rockwell Automation India Pvt Ltd vs Ce & Cgst Noida on 10 July, 2025

In the present matter, we are not concerned with the merits of Shipowners‟, which was affirmed on appeal by this Court in Union of India v. Indian National Shipowners‟ Association and Anr. [2010 (14) SCC 438 = 2011 (21) S.T.R. 3 (S.C.)]. This Court explicitly restricted itself to the interpretation of Section 65(105)(zzz) while leaving the other observations on interpretation of the law, "open to be considered at length at an appropriate stage" [2010 (14) SCC 438, para 7]. We note however, the analysis of Section 65(105)(zzzzj) of the Bombay High Court, where the High Court observed :
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Alex Bharat Raja vs Tirunelveli on 29 May, 2026

In the present matter, we are not concerned with the merits of Shipowners', which was affirmed on appeal by this Court in Union of India v. Indian National Shipowners' Association and Anr. [2010 (14) SCC 438 = 2011 (21) S.T.R. 3 (S.C.)]. This Court explicitly restricted itself to the interpretation of Section 65(105)(zzz) while leaving the other observations on interpretation of the law, "open to be considered at length at an appropriate stage" [2010 (14) SCC 438, para 7]. We note however, the analysis of Section 65(105)(zzzzj) of the Bombay High Court, where the High Court observed :
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

I.S. Dahiya vs Union Of India Through The on 2 September, 2011

13. Learned counsel of applicants have also placed reliance on a decision of the High Court of Delhi in UOI through Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Indian Navy Civilian Design Officers Association through Swapan Deb & Anr., (Writ Petition (C) No.1006/2008, decided on 02.08.2010. We fail to understand how the applicants can take any assistance from that judgment. That was a case where to meet the functional requirements, two cadres were created. First was in construction, electrical and engineering discipline and the second was in group B gazetted posts in the disciplines of construction, electrical and engineering were created and the officers were designated as junior design officers (JDO). The second division was armament in which posts designated as civilian technical officers (CTO Design) were created. Since inception both the cadres were placed in the same pay scale till the acceptance of implementation of the recommendations of the V CPC w.e.f. 1.1.1996. Whereas the CTO was placed in the pay scale of Rs.7500-12000 and that of JDO was in the pay scale of Rs.7450-11500. It was in the light of these facts that the High Court of Delhi held that since the inception of the cadre and till the recommendations of the V CPC were enforced, both posts were in the same scale of pay and it is not the case of the petitioner that a wrong had been committed in the past which required to be undone vis-`-vis the post of CTO. The twin reason of there being parity in the scale of pay in the past which now has been violated in sum of Rs.50/- only for which marginal difference no reasons are forthcoming, one is led to the conclusion that an insidious discrimination has ensued. It was in the light to this factual background that the High Court has directed to maintain parity in the pay scale. It is not a case of such nature.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sumer Singh Champawat Son Of Shri Ratan ... vs Union Of India Through The Secretary on 20 September, 2016

In the case of Indian Navy Civilian Design Officers Association (supra), there was parity between JDOs and CTO (Design) till 4th Pay Commission but the 5th Pay Commission gave higher pay scale to CTO (Design). It is noted that the department had made a very strong plea for upgrading the pay scale of JDOs to that of CTO (Design) on the ground that functions performed by them are essentially identical and complementary. While relying on the various decisions of Apex Court, the Honble High Court of Delhi has held that being that persons holding the post of JDO are required to supervise the work of Senior Foreman which post is also in the scale of Rs.7450-11500 which has resulted in disturbing the vertical relatively between the two posts and upheld the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Jodhpur Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1