Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.19 seconds)
Commissioner Of Service Tax, Mumbai Ii vs Evonik Energy Services on 21 March, 2016 cites

Cms (India) Operations And Maintenance ... vs Cce on 9 June, 2006

10. As against the above reproduced factual finding by First Appellate Authority it is to be noted that the grounds of appeal as taken by the revenue in the appeal memorandum are nowhere contradicting the factual position as stated by the First Appellate Authority. It is also to be noted that the First Appellate Authority has correctly come to a conclusion that the similar issue has been decided by the Tribunal in the case of CMS (India) Operations & Maintenance Company (supra).
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu Cites 3 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Rolls Royce Industrial Power India Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 30 March, 2015

5. Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondent assessee would submit that the article 6.3.3 of the agreement as read by the Departmental Representative would indicate that there was a clause of payment of service tax, but if it was applicable. He submits that the First Appellate Authority has relied upon the judgment of the Tribunal in CMS (India) Operations & Maintenance Company vs. CCE 2007-TIOL-892-CESTAT and in the case of Rolls Royce Industrial Power vs. CCE 2004 (171) ELT 189, which is directly on the point. He would submit that the decision of CMS (India) Operations & Maintenance Company is on identical set of facts. It is his further submission that the Adjudicating Authority could not have reclassified the services rendered by them in a refund claim filed by the respondent assessee, if the revenue wanted to reclassify the services rendered they should have done so by issuing a separate show-cause notice.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 0 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1