9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 1150X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f liquidated damage and not in the form of consideration towards any service for the reason that the said amount is for supply of lower quality of goods and thus the effect is only reduction in the transaction value of the goods. However, this vital point raised by the appellant has not been considered either by the Adjudicating Authority or by the first appellate authority. Both the authorities also have not dealt with the distinction between the liquidated damage as claimed to have received by the appellant and the consideration , which department want to impose. Both the terms have been defined legally separately in the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- The same has also not been considered on its true ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itional submission on 20.11.2020. The learned Counsel s main argument is that the amount recovered is liquidated damages against the poor quality of material supplied, has nothing to do with any service and hence, no service provision exists. Accordingly, there is no activity falls under the declared service, hence it is not taxable under the declared service as specified under section 66E(e) of the Finance Act, 1994. He further submits that in the entire transaction there is no service involved. The contract is for supply of goods and due to poor quality, the value of the goods stand reduced to the extent of amount which was recovered by the appellant. Therefore, the transaction is related to sale of goods and not for provision of any serv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Limited 2018 (13) GSTL 177 (AAR-GST) (b) Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Alpine Solvex Limited 2004-TIOL-80-HC-MP-IT (c) Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Saurashtra Cement Chemicals Industries Limited 2003-TIOL-476-HC-AHM-IT (d) Dholera Industrial City Development Project Limited 2019 (29) GSTL 40 (AAR-GST) (e) Tuticorin Port Trust vs. CCE, Tirunelveli 2016 (42) STR 512 (Tri. Chennai). 4. We have heard both sides and perused the record. We find that the facts are not in disputed that amount recovered by the appellant is towards the poor quality of goods purchased by them. The Revenue has demanded service tax, considering the activity in the present case under Section 66E ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
