9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 881X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alties under Section 76 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Aggrieved of the same, the appellant is before us. 2. This is the second round of litigation. In the earlier round, the matter had come up before this Tribunal and this Tribunal vide Order no. A/1634/13/CSTB/C-I dated 15.07.2013 had remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for consideration of the certain issues which were specified in para 5.1 of the specified order. 2.1 The said para 5.1 is reproduced below:- "5.1 The short issue for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellants have supplied/sold the materials during the course of rendering of the repair services and if so, whether they are eligib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riod of three months from the date of receipt of this order. On such submission, the adjudicating authority shall reconsider the matter afresh and pass a speaking order after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant. All contentions are kept open." In pursuance thereof, the impugned order has been passed. 3. The ld. counsel for the appellant submits that they had entered into an agreement with the principal for repair of containers used for transportation of goods by sea. During the process of repair, they use raw materials and consumables and also labour for the repairs undertaken. On labour charges and consumables, they had discharged the service tax liability. On the raw materials used in the repair of the containers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court [2012 STR 28 J44.] The ratio of this decision would squarely apply in the facts of the present case. Therefore, confirmation of service tax demand by including the value of the goods sold or deemed to have been sold is clearly unsustainable in law, and therefore, stay be granted. 4. Ld. Additional Commissioner (AR) reiterated the finding of the Adjudicating Authority and submits that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rainbow Colour Lab & Anr. 2000 (2) SCC 385 (SC) had held in the case of photography service that there is no sale of goods involved and the entire consideration received would be liable to service tax. Therefore, in the present case also since the goods are consumed while rend ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
