2014 (7) TMI 240

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n by the Governments of M.P. and Chhattisgarh. According to the appellant, the Irrigation Departments of the Governments of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh invited tenders for supply, Erection, Commissioning and Installation of turbine pumps, centrifugal pump and other pumps for lift irrigation projects and on the Appellants bid being accepted, they were awarded the contracts for the above jobs. The dispute in this case is in respect of the contracts executed during the period from 01.04.04 to 31.03.09. According to the Department, the appellant, during this period, have provided the taxable service of Erection, Commissioning and Installation, as defined under section 65(105)(zzd) read with 65 (39a)of the Finance Act, 1994 to their custome....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....posed penalty of equal amount on them under section 78 and another penalty of Rs. 5,000/- under section 77. Against this order of the Commissioner, this appeal has been filed. 2. Heard both the sides. Though the matter was listed only for the hearing of the stay application, after hearing for the same time, the Bench was of the view that matter can be taken up for final disposal. Accordingly with the consent of both sides, the matter was heard for final disposal. 3. Sh. B.L.Narsimhan, Advocate, the learned counsel for the appellant, pleaded that from the sample work orders placed on record, it is clear that the Appellant have executed contracts awarded to them by the Governments of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh only relating to foll....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rial construction service, that Commissioner has wrongly considered entire gross receipt except the value of supply items worth about Rs. 25 Lakh as the value of the Erection, installation and Commissioning service which is not correct and that in view of this the impugned order is not correct. 4. Sh. Amresh Jain, learned DR, defended the impugned order by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner. 5. We have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. Ongoing through the sample contract placed on records and also the invoices submitted by the appellant to the Project Authority, it is seen that the contract is not an indivisible 'works contract', as the same mentions the details of the price of the suppl....