Case Law Details
Michigan Engineers Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of Service Tax-II (CESTAT Mumbai)
They have not provided any taxable service and the entire work was actually performed by the sub-sub-contractor namely M/s. Relcon, the Tribunal notes that the Commissioner has not addressed the said submissions. Accordingly, directs re-adjudication.
The appellant is a Joint Venture. It is the main contractor. Michigan is the sub-contractor. The JV was awarded contract for widening of “Mithi River” post floods at Mumbai in July, 2005. It was to undertake construction of retaining wall to prevent the water from overflowing and repeat of the flood scenario. It was a works contract. The revenue classified it under “Dredging” service. The JV filed an appeal. Another order was passed vivisecting the work into “dredging service” and “works contract” service and dropping part liability. Against this order the sub-contractor and Revenue were in appeal.
The Hon’ble CESTAT, Mumbai allows the appeals and remands the matter back. It holds: (i) allows miscellaneous seeking to urge the additional grounds before the Hon’ble CESTAT, Mumbai (which were not raised in memo of appeal) as it relates to classification of service; (ii) the contention that no demand can lie under “works contract” service and the contention that they have not provided any taxable service and the entire work was actually performed by the sub- sub-contractor namely M/s. Relcon, the Tribunal notes that the Commissioner has not addressed the said submissions. Accordingly, directs re-adjudication.
The matter was argued by Ld. Counsel Bharat Raichandani
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
