CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Ashok Jindal, J, K. Anpazhakan, Technical Member
M/s The Mining & Engineering Corporation – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Kolkata – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts of tax demand and penalties (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments against service tax liability (Para 3) |
| 3. court's observations on service tax applicability (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. decision on supply of tangible goods and service tax (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
Per Ashok Jindal :
The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the demand of service tax along with interest has been confirmed and an equivalent amount of penalty has been imposed on the appellant.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant has obtained service tax registration from the Service Tax Authorities for providing services under the category of “Erection, Commissioning & Installation”, “Site Preparation and Clearance”, “Supply of Tangible Goods for Use Services”, “Works Contract Services”, “Transport of Goods by Road”, “Maintenance or Repair Services”, “Construction Services in respect of Commercial or Industrial Building and Civil Structures” etc.. For the said services, the appellant filed a declaration under Sub-section (1) of Section 107 of the Finance Act , 2013 read with Rule 4 of the Service Tax Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Rules, 2013 in Form VCES-I dated 24.12.

Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.