Case Law Details
Schindler India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of CGST (CESTAT Mumbai)
CESTAT Mumbai held that that de novo adjudication order has been set aside by the Tribunal and the subsequent demands raised through Section 73(1A) as well as its conformation having been based on the previous conformation orders, the same is liable to be set aside and we do so.
Facts- Appellant Company manufactures elevators and also provides service, installation and commissioning of elevators. Under the service category registration was done for ‘installation and commissioning and works contract services’. It adapts two business modules namely manufacturing elevators alone and for manufacturing as well as installation of elevators. For the second module it discharges appropriate VAT liability on supply of equipments and paid Service Tax on the component of installation and commission services.
Respondent-Department disputed payment of Service Tax on installation and commissioning after deducting the amount paid towards supply of equipments/parts on which VAT was discharged and issue show cause for recovery of Service Tax on the gross amount charged towards the entire process of supply of equipment as well as installation and commissioning on the ground that bifurcation of both the components were not apparently noticeable. Matter was adjudicated upon and demand was conformed along with interest and penalties.
Conclusion- Held that the sole basis of conformation of demand made in these three appeals was that in the de novo proceeding the demand in its entity was conformed with interest and penalties but having regard to the fact that the said de novo adjudication order has been set aside by this Tribunal and the subsequent demands raised through Section 73(1A) as well as its conformation having based on the previous conformation orders, the same is liable to be set aside and we do so.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
