TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 182X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore the findings in the Final Order are perverse. We recall the Final Order dated 13.02.2018 - further, it is also held that the appellant is not liable to Service Tax on the goods supplied under the separate supply contract, as the ownership was already with the principal at the time of execution of erection contract. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/ROM/50458-50460/2018, Appeal No. ST/52612-52614/2014-DB - FINAL ORDER NO. 50005-50007/2019 - Dated:- 2-1-2019 - Shri Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) And Shri C.L. Mahar, Member (Technical) Shri S. Santhanam, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Amresh Jain, AR for the Respondent ORDER Per Anil Choudhary: 1. The appellant has filed the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of cement, steel. As per terms of the supply contract, the applicant had supplied carbon steel pipes, M.S. pipes, ductile iron pipes, pumps, motors, valves, dog bend, rubber gasket, soft starters, optical fibre cables, etc. The value of the supply contract was ₹ 278.56 Crores. Further, as per the terms of the Erection Contract, the applicant was providing the services of unloading, handling, erection, testing, commissioning, carrying performance guarantee test, etc. The value of Erection Contract was ₹ 33.39 Crores. 6. The appellant also entered into a Coordination Agreement dated 30.08.2007 so that the performance of respective obligations both as supply contractor and service contractor, under the above said two agreem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cts. Accordingly, upholding the charging of Service Tax under the category of Works Contract Composition Scheme by clubbing the amount received under the two separate contract is erroneous against the provisions of law. The appellant had rightly deposited Service Tax on the erection contract under the composition scheme, as it also involved material like cement, steel etc. So far the work done at Sitarganj Project, Uttarakhand is concerned, there is no co-ordination agreement available for clubbing the receipts or value under the supply contract and erection contract. The appellant have used the goods belonging to the principal for erection contract. Thus, there is no transfer of materials from the appellant to the principal or contract ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es (under supply contract) raised by the appellant. Copy of the sample invoices are already on record. Thus, the appellant could not have again transferred the material, supplied under the supply contract, by way of works contract or service contract. Thus, we find that there is error in the Final Order passed by this Tribunal, whereby it has been considered that supply transfer to the principal is by way of accretion under the erection contract. We find that the facts are otherwise, therefore the findings in the Final Order are perverse. Accordingly, we recall the Final Order dated 13.02.2018. We further hold that the appellant is not liable to Service Tax on the goods supplied under the separate supply contract, as the ownership was alr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
