Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (0.43 seconds)

Commissioner Of Cus. (Import) vs Larsen And Toubro Ltd. on 1 November, 1999

In this regard, he placed reliance on Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus., Kerala Vs. Larsen & Toubro (supra), wherein it was held that works contract is special species of contract distinct from a contract of service simpliciter. It was held in this case that the "gross amount charged" is applicable for services provided and not the gross amount of the works contract as a whole:
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 2 - Cited by 16 - Full Document

Croda India Company Pvt Ltd vs Commr.Service Tax- Vii Mumbai on 17 May, 2019

15. The learned Counsel for Appellant submits that the activity undertaken by them is under the category of 'Works Contract service' which is completely different from the head under which the service tax demand is raised, hence making the entire demand liable to be quashed. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant in this regard, placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble CESTAT, Mumbai bench in the case of M/s. Ajit India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax reported in 2018 (19) GSTL 659 (Tri. Mumbai), wherein the Hon'ble Tribunal concluded that the demand of tax does not sustain, since it had not been raised under the correct head for the period after 01.06.2007.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Service Tax Delhi vs Quick Heal Technologies Limited on 5 August, 2022

iii. Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi Vs. Quick Heal Technologies Ltd., - 2022 (63) GSTL 385 (SC) iv. Ocean Interior Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Chennai - (2023) 10 Centax 208 (Tri-Mad) affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Chennai Vs. Ocean Interior Ltd. - (2023) 10 Centax 209 (SC)
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 3 - A Oka - Full Document
1   2 3 Next