Erection, Commissioning & Installation Services covers pure service contracts only

Gillander Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax (CESTAT Kolkata)

Issue involved in this case relates to alleged undervaluation of the taxable category, “Erection, Commissioning and Installation Services” on the purported ground of non-inclusion of the value of goods and material sold by the Appellant under the supply work order in valuing the said taxable services. At the outset, there is considerable merit in the contention of the Appellant that composite contracts involving supply

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.