CESTAT ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside service...

CESTAT ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside service tax demands on two grounds. First, the tribunal determined that the supply of DG sets to IOCL constituted a deemed sale under Article 366(29A) of the Constitution, subject to VAT/sales tax by state governments rather than service tax under Finance Act, 1994. Second, contracts involving sale of DG sets with installation were primarily sales transactions, not works contracts. The installation was merely incidental to ensure proper functioning, similar to home appliance deliveries. Consequently, the tribunal also dismissed the revenue department's projected demand based on assumed 25% growth in service tax liability, as the underlying tax classification was incorrect. The appeal was allowed with all demands set aside.