9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 338X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection location at site. The work order issued by M/s L T Company describes the work as erection services and the payment in both the cases was linked to the number of girders erected. On going through the work contracts, the work performed by the appellants is essentially erection of girders. For this purpose, they may have used/mobilized equipment/labour. It is not coming forth from the work orders that the work orders were for supplies of any cranes or equipments. The tenor of the contract is certainly for erection of girders. The payment terms also, are not for the lease out or supply of equipment so as to be categorized the service in the supply of tangible goods. The words by providing appearing in the contract should be harmon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . They have entered into various contracts with construction companies like M/s Vijay Nirman Company Private Limited, L T Construction Limited also IsoLux Corsan etc. The Department opined that the appellants are rendering the service of supply of tangible goods services used in the year 2011-2012 and 2012-2013. A show cause notice dated 20 May, 2015 was issued and the proceedings culminated into issuance of adjudication order dated 27.05.2016 which is under challenge vide this appeal. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that leasing out the tangible goods has been introduced with effect from 01.06.2008 and as per the provisions, the levy is on supply of tangible goods and in such type of contracts, the thrust is on supply o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d was not transferred to their clients. He also reiterates the findings of the adjudicating authority. He relies on the following judgments/Circulars/Notifications which are as follows: (i) Circular No. 138/07/2011-ST dated 6.5.2011; (ii) Education Guide para 7.11.11; (iii) M/s EIH Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-I 2019 (24) GSTL 592 (Tri.-Del.); (iv) CBEC vide D.O.F. No. 334/1/2008-TRU dated 29.2.2008; (v) M/s Shoppers Stop Ltd. Vs. CST, Mumbai-II 2013 (32) STR 710 (Tri.-Mumbai). 4. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. 5. On going through the work orders issued by the clients of the appellant, it is seen that the work order issued by M/s Vijay Nirman Company Private Limited ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... description of item, it is clear that the contract is for erection of girders only and it is also mentioned that the requisite equipment, labour, transportation etc. will be managed by the appellant themselves. For this reason, the work undertaken cannot be considered to be supply of tangible service. It is clear that the Revenue had gone by the word providing cranes appearing in the work order while conveniently leaving out the other items like manpower, transportation etc. We also find that the circulars and the case law relied upon by the learned Authorized Representative are of no avail to the Revenue as the facts of the case are different. Hence, the ratio cannot be made applicable. We also find Education Guide of Service Tax Depart ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
