2018 (9) TMI 1279

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... alwar (Advocate) for Appellant(s) Shri Gyanendra Kumar Tripathi (AC) AR & Shri Pawan Kumar Singh (Supdt.) AR for Respondent(s) ORDER Per: Archana Wadhwa Both the appeals are being disposed of by a common order as the issue involved in both of them is same. 2. After hearing both the sides duly represented by Ms Pooja Talwar (Advocate) for the Appellant(s) and Shri Gyanendra Kumar Tripathi ( .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tion of demand of service tax resulting in passing of the impugned orders. Hence the present two appeals. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has argued that they are not covered under the said category inasmuch as effective possession and control of the wagaon has been handed over to Railways and as such definition of supply of tangible goods does not get satisfied, but we are of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s entered into by the appellant with the Railways are upto the year 2000 i.e., much prior to 16.05.2008. The ratio of the above decision of Tribunal is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. As such by following the same we set aside the impugned orders on this ground itself and allow both the appeals with consequential relief, if any. (Dictated and pronounced in Court)
Case laws, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X