Universal Cylinders Ltd. Vs. Cce

Universal Cylinders Ltd. vs Cce

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Jun 15, 2007

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/45667

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/45667
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: N T C.N.B., P Das
Decided On: Jun 15, 2007
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

Universal Cylinders Ltd.

Respondent

Cce

Legal References

Reported In: (2007)8STR628

Excerpt

2. the impugned order has imposed service tax by treating reconditioning as repair-cum-maintenance. the submission of the ld.consultant is that reconditioning was included only with effect from 2005 and the demand is for an earlier period. it is also being pointed out that the appellant has already deposited rs. 60,000/- out of the demand of about rs. 2.30 lakhs.3. a perusal of the definition of the service during the relevant period shows that reconditioning was not treated as repair cum maintenance during that period. the appellant has a strong, prima facie, case on merits. in view of this, requirement for further pre-deposit is waived and stay application is allowed.

Full Judgment

2. The impugned order has imposed service tax by treating reconditioning as repair-cum-maintenance. The submission of the ld.Consultant is that reconditioning was included only with effect from 2005 and the demand is for an earlier period. It is also being pointed out that the appellant has already deposited Rs. 60,000/- out of the demand of about Rs. 2.30 lakhs.

3. A perusal of the definition of the service during the relevant period shows that reconditioning was not treated as repair cum maintenance during that period. The appellant has a strong, prima facie, case on merits. In view of this, requirement for further pre-deposit is waived and stay application is allowed.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Universal Cylinders Ltd. vs Cce Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge N T C.N.B., P Das