Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (1.29 seconds)Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950
Commnr.,Central Excise & Customs, ... vs M/S. Larsen & Toubro Ltd on 20 August, 2015
18. The second issue involved in the present case is whether
the appellant is liable to pay service tax under the category of
Erection, Commissioning or Installation service with effect
16.05.2005 as alleged by the department, whereas, the claim of
the appellant is that the services provided by them to CPWD and
Airport authority are in the nature of works contract as per their
agreement and are exempted from payment of service tax. Besides
this, the appellant‟s stand is also that prior to 01.06.2007, service
tax on works contract was not leviable to service tax as per the
decision of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner,
Central Excise & Customs, Kerala Vs. Larsen & Toubro Ltd.
cited (Supra), in this regard we find that the demand of service tax
in respect of service rendered to airport is exempted from levy of
service tax by virtue of definition of works contract under Section
65 (105) (zzzza) of chapter V of Finance Act, 1994 which is
reproduced here in below:
Section 78 in The Finance Act, 2018 [Entire Act]
Section 80 in The Finance Act, 2018 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Finance Act, 2018 [Entire Act]
Section 65 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
Madley Pharmaceuticals Ltd vs Commnr Of Central Excise&Customs, ... on 14 January, 2011
8. He further submits that the department‟s contention that
the services of the appellant is falling under the category of
„Erection, Commissioning or Installation‟ is incorrect. In view of the
decision in the case of Goa Friends Engineering & Electricals (P.)
Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise [2021] 131
taxman.com 238 (Mumbai-CESTAT) wherein it has been held that
the Erection, Installation, Testing and Commissioning of electrical
works cannot exist independent of civil structure just as tax
liability arises on ancillary activities of civil construction so would
exemption that pertains to civil construction, retrospective effect
of exemption is applicable to electrical works executed and
maintenance undertaken by the appellant.
Pushpam Pharmaceuticals Company vs Collector Of Central Excise, Bombay on 28 March, 1995
The provisions of section 11A of the Central Excise Act
came up for interpretation before the Supreme Court in
8 ST/1785/2012
Pushpam Pharmaceuticals Company vs. Collector of Central
Excise, Bombay6 . The Supreme Court observed that section
11A empowers the Department to reopen the proceedings if
levy has been short levied or not levied within six months
from the relevant date but the proviso carves out an
exception and permits the authority to exercise this power
within five years from the relevant date in the circumstances
mentioned in the proviso, one of it being suppression of facts.
M/S. Anand Nishikawa Co.Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise,Meerut on 23 September, 2005
(emphasis supplied)
It is, therefore, clear that the suppression of facts should
be deliberate and in taxation laws it can have only one
meaning, namely that the correct information was not
disclosed deliberately to escape payment of duty.
This decision of the Supreme Court in Pushpam
Pharmaceuticals was followed by the Supreme Court in Anand
Nishikawa Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Meerut7 and the relevant paragraph is as follows:-