2009 (10) TMI 66

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ally. 2.1. The facts, in brief, as noted from the records and submissions of both sides are that a consortium of a few parties including the present appellant have undertaken execution of turnkey projects for Bhillai Steel Plant and Durgapur Steel Plant. There are common contracts between each of the said Steel Plants and the consortium of parties; the contracts apportioned different areas of work/service to be undertaken by each of the parties to the consortium and also apportioned specifically the amount payable to each of them in connection with the said contract. In respect of each service provider (like the present appellant) the contract further separately indicates the different activities and separately the amounts payable for each .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... earing for the appellants submits that, by its nature, the contract is divisible, initially service- provider wise and further in respect each service provider service wise. among three or four parties specifically assigning the work of each service providing parties and further, the service is divided in respect of each service provider. The contract specifically refers it as a divisible contract and the amount pertaining to each of the service rendered by them have been specifically mentioned in the contract and accordingly, the service charges are being billed and received separately and service tax being paid. He further submits that the input service of Consulting Engineer service was only in relation to their out put service as Cons .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the reply to the notice have not been considered in proper perspective. The crucial question is whether the appellant have rendered separate services of Consulting Engineer Service has not been dealt. The submissions contained in the report on the various questions raised by the Tribunal should have been dealt with in the order of original authority. The order of the Commissioner, as already observed in the order dated 17-8-09, appears cryptic and does not deal with all the issues adequately with reference to the various submissions made by the appellants. The order can not be held to be speaking. In view of the above, we deem it proper to set aside the order of the Commissioner and remand the matter to the Commissioner for fresh considera .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X