https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244542 The contract was treated as divisible because the consideration was consciously split into labour charges and the price of goods, and the goods component was found to pass in property during execution of the repair work. On that basis, the authority applied Notification No. 12/2003-ST to the separately identifiable goods element and dropped the show cause notice. The reviewing forum found no legal infirmity in that approach and upheld the finding that the goods component was exempt. The Revenue's appeal failed, and the cross objection did not survive. en-us Wed, 23 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 28 Feb 2014 11:47:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244542 The contract was treated as divisible because the consideration was consciously split into labour charges and the price of goods, and the goods component was found to pass in property during execution of the repair work. On that basis, the authority applied Notification No. 12/2003-ST to the separately identifiable goods element and dropped the show cause notice. The reviewing forum found no legal infirmity in that approach and upheld the finding that the goods component was exempt. The Revenue's appeal failed, and the cross objection did not survive. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 23 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244542