Cce Vs. Moser Baer India Ltd.

Cce vs Moser Baer India Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Oct 31, 2005

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/40674

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/40674
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: S Kang, Vice, M T K.C.
Decided On: Oct 31, 2005
Subject: Service Tax

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service Tax

Key legal issue: Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Cce

Respondent

Moser Baer India Ltd.

Excerpt

2. the revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the commissioner (appeals). in the impugned order, the commissioner (appeals) while confirming the demand of service tax proportionate amount into two parts i.e. 50% towards installation, commissioning and final acceptance test and 50% towards technical assistance. the revenue filed this appeal against this finding. the contention of the revenue is that this proportionate against the evidence on record and that the respondents are liable to pay service tax in respect of the entire amount.3. the revenue also made a prayer in the appeal for enhancement of penalty.4. the respondent brought to our notice that the tribunal in the appeal filed by the appellant against the same impugned order set aside the demand on the ground that prior to 16.8.02 the appellants are not liable to pay any service tax and set aside the demand of service tax, the decision of the tribunal reported as 2005 tiol 786.5. as the demand has already been set aside by the tribunal on appeal filed by the appellants, therefore, the revenue against the same impugned order challenging the proprotionment amount and for enhancement of penalty is dismissed as infructuous.

Full Judgment

2. The Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) while confirming the demand of Service Tax proportionate amount into two parts i.e. 50% towards installation, commissioning and final acceptance test and 50% towards technical assistance. The Revenue filed this appeal against this finding. The contention of the Revenue is that this proportionate against the evidence on record and that the respondents are liable to pay Service Tax in respect of the entire amount.

3. The Revenue also made a prayer in the appeal for enhancement of penalty.

4. The respondent brought to our notice that the Tribunal in the appeal filed by the appellant against the same impugned order set aside the demand on the ground that prior to 16.8.02 the appellants are not liable to pay any Service Tax and set aside the demand of Service Tax, the decision of the Tribunal reported as 2005 TIOL 786.

5. As the demand has already been set aside by the Tribunal on appeal filed by the appellants, therefore, the Revenue against the same impugned order challenging the proprotionment amount and for enhancement of penalty is dismissed as infructuous.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Cce vs Moser Baer India Ltd. Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge S Kang, Vice, M T K.C.