2006 (7) TMI 627

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e petitioner was fabrication of aluminium partitioning materials, doors, windows, etc., mostly with glass and fixing the same at the customer's site. On facts, after verifying the orders produced before the Tribunal, the Tribunal found that the petitioner was fabricating and supplying aluminium doors, windows, frames, etc., with glass based on specific orders placed by the customers. In fact, it is seen from one of the purchase orders produced by the petitioner before the Tribunal that the Tribunal found that petitioner was charging price per piece of the items supplied. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the items supplied are finished aluminium products as value charged was for every piece. In upholding the assessment as sale of g....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... So far as fabrication and supply of doors, windows, etc., by charging piece rate is concerned, we are in complete agreement with the Tribunal that those are sale of goods, and not works contract because even if a product is made to suit a customer, it does not cease to be goods. It is seen from the orders of the Tribunal that the petitioner collected 40 per cent towards advance and on delivery 50 per cent was charged. Therefore, 90 per cent price is charged for fabrication and supply of goods and balance 10 per cent was charged on fixing the doors/windows at the customer's premises. The transactions of the nature referred to by the Tribunal are, in our opinion, only sale of aluminium products, even though those are custom made items. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....unal's orders arising from KGST assessments, namely, S.T. Rev. Nos. 99, 114, 115, 121, 130 and 144 of 2003, are disposed of as above. So far as the orders of the Tribunal confirming the CST assessments are concerned, the case of the petitioner is that contracts were received at Bangalore and the amounts were received in Bangalore for the works executed by him in Bangalore. According to the petitioner, only some materials were transferred, that too for two years and for the balance years full materials were sourced from Karnataka and executed the work there. However, the assessing officer assumed that receipt of sale price from Karnataka represents inter-State sales, though partly pertaining to works contract. Therefore, he estimated ....