TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 491X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tedly, the said machinery was installed in the promises of the lessee at Sonepat, Haryana. The workers of lessee are entitled to operate such machinery and the lessee is required to take care of the said machinery. Further, pursuant to circular from the CBSE, wherein clearly explaining the scope of the service, it was clarified that transactions, where the supply of tangible goods for use and levi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under the category of SOTG on their activity of leasing of machinery. 2. The admitted facts are that under the agreement dated 1.11.2010, the appellant company gave on lease certain machineries for a period of 18 years to the lessee M/s.Scraft Products Pvt. Ltd. Under the said agreement, the packing and finishing machineries for repacking of tissue paper etc. from bulk rolls to retail size ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shall utilise the machinery as per normal industry standards and shall be responsible for normal maintenance and repair of the machinery. Further, the appellant company had given an advance of ₹ 261.78 lakhs to the lessee, which was returnable to them over a period of 18 years at a monthly instalments of ₹ 1.21 lakh per month. 3. Show cause notice dated 28.02.2013 was issued for a p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ered to the lessee and admittedly, the said machinery was installed in the promises of the lessee at Sonepat, Haryana. The workers of lessee are entitled to operate such machinery and the lessee is required to take care of the said machinery. Further, we find that pursuant to circular from the CBSE, wherein clearly explaining the scope of the service, it was clarified that transactions, where the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant have failed to lead evidence as regards payment of VAT on the said transaction, we find that the said finding is vague as the invoice itself shows charging of VAT and appellant had contended in the very 1st reply to the show cause that they have paid VAT. Accordingly we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order. The appellant shall be entitled to the consequential benefit. (Dicta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
