Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.20 seconds)Finance Act, 1999
Spandrel vs The Commissioner Of Central Excise on 26 April, 2007
6.1 Also in the case of Spandrel Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Hyderabad (supra) the Tribunal held as follows:
Finance Act, 2015
Section 65 in The Finance Act, 2018 [Entire Act]
M/S. Tata Iron & Steel Co.Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 15 December, 2015
3. The Learned Counsel submitted that the appellant entered
into an Agreement with M/s. Asian Paints Ltd. on a principal-to-
principal basis for providing support to customers who are in
need of painting solutions from Asian Paints. The appellant since
possessed the required infrastructure and manpower to provide
the painting services, entered into an Agreement with M/s. Asian
Paints. It is submitted that the same issue was raised for the
subsequent period for October 2011 to June 2012 and the
Learned Joint Commissioner had dropped the demand on the
ground that the services were rightly classifiable under 'Works
Contract Services' and not under 'Management, Maintenance or
Page 2 of 10
ST/28425/2013
Repair Services' and no appeal was filed against this order,
hence attained finality. It is also submitted that in the case of
Tata Steel Ltd. versus Commissioner of Central Excise,
Jamshedpur: 2016 (335) ELT 303 (Tri.-Kolkata) and
Microsoft India (R&D) Pvt. Ltd. versus Commissioner of
Central Excise and Service Tax, Bangalore: 2022 (56)
GSTL 29 (Tri.-Bang) wherein it was held that Revenue cannot
have different views at different points of time.
Chennai Telephones (Bsnl) vs Cce on 19 December, 2003
It can be seen from the above that the activities which had been
undertaken, as enumerated in the clarification, have now been
specifically included. This would indicate that prior to 16-6-2005,
these were not included in the category of 'interior decorator
service'. In a series of decisions of the Tribunal which laid down
law that if the category of services is brought into service tax net
from a specific date, such services would not be covered under
any other category of services. For this purpose, we find that the
Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Chennai Telephones (BSNL) v.
CCE [2007] 7 STT 52 (Chennal - CESTAT) has very clearly held
that levy of leased circuit service was introduced only from 16-7-
2001 and it is not proper to demand service tax on said service for
an earlier period under the category of 'telephone service'.
Suo-Moto Case No. 01/2010 (In Re: Sugar ... vs 2.2.1 National Federation Of ... on 30 November, 2011
"9. We also agree with the appellant's contention that once the
new entry is introduced with effect from the date without
disturbing already existing entries, it has to be held that the new
entry was not covered by the previous entry. The reference in this
regard is made to the Tribunal decision in the case of Board of
Control For Cricket in India v. C.S.T., Mumbai - 2007 (7) S.T.R.
384 (Trib. - Mum.)."
Section 64 in Finance Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
M/S Narayan Associates vs Commissioner (Appeals), Central ... on 21 March, 2018
3.1 Further, it is submitted that the appellant was providing
end-to-end painting services of residential units and commercial
complex to the customers and as per Section 65(25b) and
Section 65(30a) of the Finance Act, 1994 'Commercial or
Industrial Construction and Construction of Complex Services'
included completion and finishing services such as glazing,
plastering, painting etc., hence, the services were rightly
classifiable under 'Works Contract Services'. The appellant also
referred to the case of Spandrel vs. Commissioner of Central
Excise, Hyderabad: 2010 (5) TMI 299 CESTAT, Bangalore
and the case of P&H Associates vs. Commissioner of Central
Excise and ST Vadodara: 2024 (1) TMI 1058-CESTAT
Ahmedabad to state that the services are rightly classifiable
under 'Works Contract Services'. Further, in view of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court's decision in the case of Commissioner of
Central Excise and Customs vs. M/s Larsen and Toubro
Ltd. and Others: 2015 (39) STR 913 (SC), it is submitted
that service tax on Works Contract Services cannot be levied
prior to 01.06.2007.
1