9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 461X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd. had given them two separate contracts for supply of transformers and erection and commissioning of such transformers. Nature of contract - composite contract or separate contract - Held that:- Tender as floated by MSEB/MSDEL, sought quote for supply and erection and commissioning of transformers separately; but while awarding the tender to M/s. Sunil Hitech Engineers Ltd., we find that MSEB/MSDEL had infact executed three separate contracts i.e. one for supply of transformers; one for erection and commissioning of such transformers; one for civil construction of required-for erectioning and commissioning of such transformers. It is also noticed that the said M/s. Sunil Hitech Engineers Ltd. who bagged the contract had given back t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eof and penalties under various section on the main appellant and imposed penalty on the Managing Director under Section 77(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 and imposed penalty under Section 77 on M/s. Sunil Hitech Engineers Ltd. 4. Heard both sides and perused the records. 5. The confirmation of the demand is arising on the ground that the appellant being manufacturer of transformers has executed a contract with M/s. Sunil Hitech Engineers Ltd. for supply and erection and commissioning of transformers. The adjudicating authority is of the view that the appellant (M/s. IMP Powers Ltd.) is not eligible to avail the Cenvat Credit on the inputs which were procured and consumed for manufacturing of transformers as they have discharged the serv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contract composition scheme as has been clarified by CBEC Circular NO.150/1/2012-ST, dt. 08.02.2012. 7. Ld. Counsel Shri Natarajan appearing on behalf of M/s. Sunil Hitech Engineers Ltd, would submit that the appellant herein has been imposed with penalty on the ground that this appellant had helped and advised M/s. IMP Powers Ltd. for evasion of service tax by vivisecting or separating the contract for supply and erection of transformers. It is his submission that the adjudicating authority has imposed penalty of Rs.20.00 lakhs under the provisions of Section 77 of the Finance Act/ 1994, which according to him, mandated, during the relevant period for imposition of penalty of Rs.1,000/- only. It is his submission that the factual matrix ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd cleared by them. In the case in hand, it is also undisputed that the transformers which were manufactured and cleared by the appellants on discharge of appropriate central excise duty are to the site of MSEB, for further activity of erection and commissioning. In our considered view, prima facie, the denial of the Cenvat Credit on the inputs which has gone into manufacturing of the said transformers cannot be upheld for the reason that the activity of manufacture of transformers is excisable and the excise duty liability has been discharged by the appellant M/s. IMP Powers Ltd. 10. Now coming to the service tax liability on the said M/s. IMP Powers Ltd., we find that the appellant had discharged the service tax liability on the amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
