Ask Jurishour AI

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
tdb_templates
saswp_reviews
saswp-collections
saswp_rvs_location
tdc-review-email
web-story-font
web-story
googlesitekit_email
tds_locker
tds_email
saswp
mailpoet_page
mailpoet_email
tdcpt_tunes
tdc-review
pronamic_payment
pronamic_gateway
pronamic_pay_subscr
wpcode
HomeIndirect TaxesNo Service Tax on Composite Imported Machinery Contracts — Artificial Vivisection for...

No Service Tax on Composite Imported Machinery Contracts — Artificial Vivisection for ECIS Under RCM Not Permissible: CESTAT

Indirect Taxes

Published on

By Mariya Paliwala
cestat

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Hyderabad Bench, has set aside a service tax demand holding that a composite import contract for machinery cannot be artificially split to levy service tax under the category of “Erection, Commissioning and Installation Service” (ECIS) under the Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM). The Bench of Angad Prasad…

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

View Membership Levels

Already a member? Log in here
Mariya Paliwala
Mariya Paliwalahttps://www.jurishour.in/
Mariya is the Senior Editor at Juris Hour. She has 7+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started her career as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies.

Latest articles

GST

GST Interest Can’t Be Retained After Tax Refund On Delayed Export Receipts: Punjab & Haryana HC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the GST department cannot retain...
Notification

Central PSUs Must Route MSME Invoice Payments Through TReDS From October 15

The Central Government has notified October 15, 2026, as the commencement date for several...
Indirect Taxes

Common Purchase Orders Do Not Prove Dummy Unit: CESTAT Quashes ₹69.86 Lakh Excise Demand

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has dismissed the...
GST

Gujarat HC Quashes Rs. 43.43 crore GST Demand Against Amul

The Gujarat High Court has quashed a ₹43.43 crore GST demand against Amul, holding...

More like this

GST

GST Interest Can’t Be Retained After Tax Refund On Delayed Export Receipts: Punjab & Haryana HC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the GST department cannot retain...
Notification

Central PSUs Must Route MSME Invoice Payments Through TReDS From October 15

The Central Government has notified October 15, 2026, as the commencement date for several...
Indirect Taxes

Common Purchase Orders Do Not Prove Dummy Unit: CESTAT Quashes ₹69.86 Lakh Excise Demand

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has dismissed the...