Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Techaids Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Techaids vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Aug 03, 2006
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/43319

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Other Taxes

Case Summary

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

Other Taxes

Key legal issue
Other Taxes

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Techaids

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In
(2006)(109)ECC451

Excerpt

2. appellant filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal whereby the refund claim of the appellant was rejected on the ground that the appellant filed the refund in respect of service tax paid by them on the ground that process undertaken by them does not amount to maintenance or repair.3. the brief facts of the case are that the appellants are receiving old and used cylinders and replenished the paper/cotton felt/rubber required in them for specified quantity and in a specified manner for bringing the cylinders to its original workable/usable condition and thereafter the cylinders can be put to use by the textile/paper industry. the appellant deposited the service tax treating the process undertaken by them as maintenance or repair and thereafter filed refund claim on the ground that the processes undertaken by them are not covered under the maintenance or repair service. the contention of the appellants is that they are doing something more than the repair and it does not amount to repair. they are refilling the old and used rolls.4. admittedly the facts of the case are that the appellants are receiving old and used cylinders and these are being filled by them with paper/cotton felt/rubber for bringing the cylinders in original workable condition so that the cylinders can be put to use in the machine. in these circumstances, we find no infirmity in the impugned order whereby it was held that process undertaken by the appellants comes under the scope of maintenance or repair service. the appeal is dismissed.

Full Judgment

2. Appellant filed this Appeal against the Order-in-appeal whereby the refund claim of the appellant was rejected on the ground that the appellant filed the refund in respect of service tax paid by them on the ground that process undertaken by them does not amount to maintenance or repair.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are receiving old and used cylinders and replenished the paper/cotton felt/rubber required in them for specified quantity and in a specified manner for bringing the cylinders to its original workable/usable condition and thereafter the cylinders can be put to use by the textile/paper industry. The appellant deposited the service tax treating the process undertaken by them as maintenance or repair and thereafter filed refund claim on the ground that the processes undertaken by them are not covered under the maintenance or repair service. The contention of the appellants is that they are doing something more than the repair and it does not amount to repair. They are refilling the old and used rolls.

4. Admittedly the facts of the case are that the appellants are receiving old and used cylinders and these are being filled by them with paper/cotton felt/rubber for bringing the cylinders in original workable condition so that the cylinders can be put to use in the machine. In these circumstances, we find no infirmity in the impugned order whereby it was held that process undertaken by the appellants comes under the scope of maintenance or repair service. The appeal is dismissed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial