9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 634X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The identical issue has come up before the Tribunal in the case of Petronet LNG Ltd. Vs. CST, New Delhi [2013 (11) TMI 1011 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], where the moveable vessel was given on lease rent and it was held that on the long term agreements of the movable property i.e. tanker, the transactions fall within the ambit of the exclusionary clause of Section 65(105)(zzzzj) of the Act and therefo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ise Customs (Appeals-I), Raipur. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant are engaged in the manufacture of cement and clinker and makes use of its own private railway sidings within the plant to dispatch the cement to railway wagons. 3. In the year 1992, railways introduced the Own Your Wagon Scheme , whereby the appellant could purchase wagons, and lease them to railways for a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s; 4. Finally, following the provision, the Department has issued a show cause notice and demanded the Service Tax under Section 65(105)(zzzzj) to allege that the lease rent amounts Supply of Tangible Goods . So, service tax was demanded. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed by the appellant. 5. With this background, we heard Sh. Sanjay Grover, ld. Advocate for the appellant and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... construction of the several provisions of the long term charter agreements, including in particular clause 15, the conclusion is inescapable that the taxable event occurs on the entering into the agreement followed by delivery of the tankers and not on day-to-day basis as contended by the Revenue. The stipulation as to payment of daily hire charges is only a commercial term relating to computation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act and therefore immune to the liability to Service tax. In the instant case, the wagon are not located during the entire period by the appellant within the territory of India so the appellant is not liable to pay service tax under the reverse charge mechanism in view of the proviso to Rule 3(iii). 8. By following the ratio laid down by our earlier order (supra), we find no justification ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
