Supply of tangible goods taxability upheld where possession stayed with supplier and only permissive use was given.

A transaction remains taxable as Supply of Tangible Goods Service where the supplier retains possession and effective control, even if trailers and related equipment are provided for movement of heavy goods. The demand for Erection, Commissioning and Installation service was also maintained. Non-filing of ST-3 returns for most of the disputed period, non-disclosure of taxable value, and unretracted statements during investigation justified invocation of the extended period and supported penalties under Sections 77(2) and 78. Cum-tax treatment was required under Section 67(2), and CENVAT credit denial could not stand where the ground was not put to notice; tax and penalty were therefore directed to be reworked after fresh verification.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant's activity of providing trailers and related equipment for movement of heavy goods was classifiable as Supply of Tangible Goods Service and whether the Erection, Commissioning and Installation service demand was sustainable; (ii) Whether invocation of the extended period of limitation and the consequential penalties were sustainable; (iii) Whether the appellant was entitled to cum-tax benefit and reassessment of CENVAT credit.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant's activity of providing trailers and related equipment for movement of heavy goods was classifiable as Supply of Tangible Goods Service and whether the Erection, Commissioning and Installation service demand was sustainable.

Analysis: The decisive test was whether possession and effective control of the tangible goods had been transferred. On the work orders, the appellant retained operational control, supplied drivers and crew, bore insurance and maintenance obligations, and received hire charges for use of the trailers. The activity satisfied the ingredients of Section 65(105)(zzzzj) of the Finance Act, 1994 for the pre-01.07.2012 period and Section 66E(f) of the Finance Act, 1994 for the post-01.07.2012 period, because the transactions involved supply of tangible goods for use without transfer of the right to use. The separate demand relating to erection, commissioning and installation was also not disturbed, as that liability stood conceded in substance.

Conclusion: The classification under Supply of Tangible Goods Service was upheld and the challenge to the Erection, Commissioning and Installation demand was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether invocation of the extended period of limitation and the consequential penalties were sustainable.

Analysis: The appellant had not filed ST-3 returns for the entire disputed period save one year, had not disclosed the full taxable value, and had not rebutted the allegation of suppression. The statement recorded during investigation was not retracted. In these circumstances, the dispute was not treated as a mere question of interpretation of law, and the ingredients for invoking the extended period were found to be present. The penalties under Sections 77(2) and 78 were therefore not interfered with on principle.

Conclusion: Invocation of the extended period and the imposition of penalties were sustained.

Issue (iii): Whether the appellant was entitled to cum-tax benefit and reassessment of CENVAT credit.

Analysis: The denial of cum-tax treatment was found to be inconsistent with Section 67(2) of the Finance Act, 1994, and the denial of CENVAT credit was held to rest on a ground not put to notice in the show cause notice. The liability required verification on the basis of relevant documents, including the appellant's actual receipts and credit eligibility, and the quantum of duty and penalty had therefore to be reworked by the jurisdictional authority after giving an opportunity to adduce evidence.

Conclusion: The appellant was held entitled to cum-tax consideration and fresh examination of CENVAT credit.

Final Conclusion: The classification and limitation findings were maintained, but the matter was sent back for limited reworking of tax liability and penalty after granting cum-tax and CENVAT credit consideration.

Ratio Decidendi: A transaction remains taxable as supply of tangible goods when the supplier retains possession and effective control and the recipient receives only permissive use, and such transactions may also justify invocation of the extended period where returns are not filed and suppression is established; however, tax computation must still conform to cum-tax principles and legally sustainable credit adjudication.

---