2013 (10) TMI 301

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Respondent : Shri P. Arul, Superintendent (AR) ORDER Per Mathew John: 1. The applicant is engaged in construction of commercial and residential complexes. While executing such projects, applicant was receiving steel and cement from their customers. The applicant was receiving only the value of services undertaken by them. They claimed abatement under notification 15/04-ST and 1/06-ST....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....bmits that material given by their customers cannot form part of the value of consideration received by the applicants. He submits that this issue was before the Hon. Madras High Court in the case of L&T Ltd. Vs UOI - 2007 (7) STR 123 (Mad.) wherein the Hon'ble Madras High Court prima facie took a view that value of materials supplied by the service recipient cannot be added in the total taxable v....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of Jaihind Projects (supra) wherein detailed reason is given at para-28 which is reproduced below :-           28. We are also unable to accept the view canvassed by the appellant that expression 'supplied' 'provided' or 'used' has to be taken to meaning 'supplied and used' by the service provider or 'provided and used' by the service provider. As al....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing of air-crafts or installation of computer system. Unlike air craft, computer system, in this case, the pipe is only a part of pipeline and not the final product. Service is laying of the pipelines and not simply providing the pipes. If the service provided happens to be service like sand blasting, painting of the pipes, the contention of the appellant that the pipes cannot be said to have been....