2007 (10) TMI 562

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tioner, Urea Casale S.A. is a company having its head office in Switzerland, project office in Mumbai and site office in the premises of National Fertilizers Limited, Nangal. The petitioner which is a specialised company takes contracts for supply of machinery and equipments for urea plants as also provides associated services such as civil and structural work, construction of frilling tower, erection, testing and commissioning of urea plants, has raised the aforementioned issue by challenging the order dated March 21, 2007 (P-11), passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal initially vide its order dated December 8, 2005 (P-7) had granted relief to the petitioner. However, on rectification application filed by the respondent-State, the order date....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... suo motu proceedings were initiated and after issuance of notice dated February 3, 2004 (P-4), revisional authority passed an order dated June 28, 2004 and revised the order of the Assessing Authority raising a demand of Rs. 29,44,087 against the assessee-petitioner (P-5). The assessee-petitioner filed a revision petition under section 21(3) of the 1948 Act before the Tribunal (P-6) challenging order dated June 28, 2004 (P5) passed by respondent No. 2, which was allowed vide order dated December 8, 2005 (P-7) by observing that the alleged transactions were not local sales within the Punjab State as alleged by the Revisional Authority. On April 18, 2006, the petitioner again made an application for refund of the amount of Rs. 15,27,805. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... held that the transaction was an inter-State sale by transfer of document while goods were in transit from one State to another against C and C-1, E2 forms. The position that the goods were sold to contractee (NFL) by the respondent-contractor in the course of inter-State trade cannot be reconciled with the position that the contractee (NFL) is the importer of goods from outside India. The Tribunal has not recorded any definite finding with regard to importation of goods. Further, if the contractee (NFL) had bought the goods in the course of inter-State trade from the respondent there was no finding that on what basis the subject goods were delivered to the contractor for use in the works contract, whether as a bailee or on principal to pr....