9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 606X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... they were heard together and are disposed of by this order. 2. The Appellant entered into an agreement with Volvo Logistics Corporation ("Volvo") for supply by Volvo to the Appellant of V--Emb packing material or containers, which are reusable on stock hire basis. These packing materials consist of wooden pallets, frames, and lids that can be combined into boxes. Spacers can be placed inside the boxes to separate layers of goods. The packing materials or containers are made either of wood or of plastic. Under the agreement with Volvo, the appellant was entitled to use three weeks of packaging material without rental cost. For any use beyond this period rent would be chargeable. An operative data system is described as being a unique featur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of such goods. 6. The short question in dispute in the present case concerns only the fourth ingredient. It is undisputed between the parties that the first three exist. Therefore, the question that we have to answer is, "whether the rights of possession and effective control of the packaging material in this case vest in Volvo or in the Appellant ?". 7. We find that there is nothing on the record which regulates the manner in which the Appellant may use the packaging material once it has been delivered to the Appellant. By means of the operative data system referred to above, it is true that Volvo has information in its position as to the status of the packaging material. However, this information does not, to us, appear to rise to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat in that case it was not disputed that there was no transfer of ownership or possession of the goods in question from the service provider to the service recipient. In fact, from paragraph 24 of that judgement, we find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the crux of the dispute was whether the goods in that case were supplied for the use of the purchaser or not. Accordingly, this decision is distinguishable on facts. 10. In view of the above, we are of the view that the transactions in question do not constitute the service of the "Supply of Tangible Goods" as defined in Section 65(105)(zzzzj) of the Finance Act, 1994 and hence, the impugned order cannot sustain. 11. Resultantly, the appeals are allowed with consequential ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
