Service tax abatement denied where goods were used in contract work but no transfer of property to recipient was proved.

Abatement from service tax was not admissible where goods were used in executing the contract but no transfer of property in those goods to the service recipient was shown. The analysis treated transfer of property as necessary to establish a sale of goods; absent that transfer, the contract remained a pure service contract and could not qualify for the claimed abatement. The claim was therefore rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether abatement from service tax was admissible where goods were used in execution of the contract but property in the goods was not transferred to the service recipient.

Analysis: The claim for abatement depended on showing that the goods used in the contract had been parted with to the recipient of service. On the facts found, there was no transfer of property in the goods to the recipient. In the absence of such transfer, there was no sale of goods and the contract remained a pure service contract.

Conclusion: Abatement was not available to the appellant and the claim was rejected.

---