Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2003 (6) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2003 (6) TMI 36 - AT - Central Excise

  1. 2004 (8) TMI 1 - SCH
  2. 2017 (12) TMI 1444 - HC
  3. 2016 (4) TMI 548 - HC
  4. 2004 (10) TMI 98 - HC
  5. 2024 (11) TMI 262 - AT
  6. 2024 (8) TMI 319 - AT
  7. 2024 (7) TMI 753 - AT
  8. 2023 (12) TMI 1144 - AT
  9. 2023 (7) TMI 467 - AT
  10. 2022 (9) TMI 902 - AT
  11. 2022 (4) TMI 517 - AT
  12. 2021 (11) TMI 18 - AT
  13. 2019 (9) TMI 1037 - AT
  14. 2018 (9) TMI 903 - AT
  15. 2018 (2) TMI 1119 - AT
  16. 2017 (12) TMI 1503 - AT
  17. 2017 (11) TMI 1463 - AT
  18. 2017 (9) TMI 1327 - AT
  19. 2017 (9) TMI 31 - AT
  20. 2017 (5) TMI 653 - AT
  21. 2017 (9) TMI 1555 - AT
  22. 2016 (12) TMI 537 - AT
  23. 2016 (12) TMI 1131 - AT
  24. 2016 (9) TMI 1138 - AT
  25. 2016 (6) TMI 623 - AT
  26. 2016 (11) TMI 645 - AT
  27. 2015 (9) TMI 533 - AT
  28. 2016 (3) TMI 899 - AT
  29. 2015 (7) TMI 819 - AT
  30. 2015 (3) TMI 748 - AT
  31. 2014 (11) TMI 167 - AT
  32. 2014 (9) TMI 150 - AT
  33. 2014 (9) TMI 646 - AT
  34. 2014 (6) TMI 831 - AT
  35. 2014 (1) TMI 1051 - AT
  36. 2013 (10) TMI 205 - AT
  37. 2013 (8) TMI 18 - AT
  38. 2012 (12) TMI 232 - AT
  39. 2012 (7) TMI 705 - AT
  40. 2012 (7) TMI 347 - AT
  41. 2012 (6) TMI 690 - AT
  42. 2011 (5) TMI 559 - AT
  43. 2011 (3) TMI 282 - AT
  44. 2011 (3) TMI 826 - AT
  45. 2011 (3) TMI 546 - AT
  46. 2011 (3) TMI 538 - AT
  47. 2011 (3) TMI 749 - AT
  48. 2010 (12) TMI 147 - AT
  49. 2010 (7) TMI 335 - AT
  50. 2010 (5) TMI 337 - AT
  51. 2010 (5) TMI 46 - AT
  52. 2010 (3) TMI 744 - AT
  53. 2010 (3) TMI 478 - AT
  54. 2009 (9) TMI 342 - AT
  55. 2009 (5) TMI 521 - AT
  56. 2009 (3) TMI 423 - AT
  57. 2009 (1) TMI 443 - AT
  58. 2008 (11) TMI 108 - AT
  59. 2008 (10) TMI 115 - AT
  60. 2008 (10) TMI 33 - AT
  61. 2008 (7) TMI 71 - AT
  62. 2008 (6) TMI 9 - AT
  63. 2008 (6) TMI 1 - AT
  64. 2008 (3) TMI 34 - AT
  65. 2008 (2) TMI 57 - AT
  66. 2007 (12) TMI 53 - AT
  67. 2007 (12) TMI 20 - AT
  68. 2007 (11) TMI 93 - AT
  69. 2007 (11) TMI 75 - AT
  70. 2007 (11) TMI 162 - AT
  71. 2007 (11) TMI 182 - AT
  72. 2007 (10) TMI 136 - AT
  73. 2007 (9) TMI 121 - AT
  74. 2007 (7) TMI 17 - AT
  75. 2007 (7) TMI 138 - AT
  76. 2007 (6) TMI 1 - AT
  77. 2007 (5) TMI 189 - AT
  78. 2007 (5) TMI 74 - AT
  79. 2006 (10) TMI 33 - AT
  80. 2006 (9) TMI 15 - AT
  81. 2006 (7) TMI 677 - AT
  82. 2006 (6) TMI 9 - AT
  83. 2006 (3) TMI 37 - AT
  84. 2006 (2) TMI 12 - AT
  85. 2006 (2) TMI 8 - AT
  86. 2006 (1) TMI 1 - AT
  87. 2006 (1) TMI 629 - AT
  88. 2005 (10) TMI 5 - AT
  89. 2005 (7) TMI 7 - AT
  90. 2005 (7) TMI 4 - AT
  91. 2005 (4) TMI 2 - AT
  92. 2004 (12) TMI 689 - AT
  93. 2004 (6) TMI 3 - AT
  94. 2004 (2) TMI 695 - AT
  95. 2003 (11) TMI 3 - AT
  96. 2008 (8) TMI 776 - Commissioner
Issues involved: Determination of liability to pay service tax on residual process design and detailed engineering in a construction contract.

Summary:
The case involved a contract between M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and M/s. Daelim Industrial Co. Ltd. for the construction of a diesel hydro-desulphurisation plant. The dispute arose when the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise issued a show cause notice holding the appellant liable to pay service tax on engineering services. The appellant contended that theirs was a construction contract and not an engineering consultancy service. Despite appeals, the duty demand was upheld. The main argument was that the contract was primarily for the construction of the desulphurisation plant, and the engineering services provided were incidental to the main objective.

The key issue in the appeal was whether consulting engineer services were involved in the contract. The contract details revealed that the project was for the construction, erection, and installation of the plant, with specific clauses outlining the responsibilities of the contractor. The contract was on a lump sum turnkey basis, and the appellant's role was focused on executing the construction work rather than providing consultancy services. The Tribunal concluded that the contract was a work contract and not a consultancy contract, emphasizing that a work contract cannot be dissected for the purpose of levying service tax.

Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders, allowing the appeal and directing the return of any amount paid by the appellant to the department.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates