2019 (1) TMI 182

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....'ble Tribunal while passing Final Order dated 13.02.2018, has failed to consider various vital points which were duly argued by the counsel for the appellant during the course of hearing, therefore, this Hon'ble Tribunal has committed an error apparent on record, which needs rectification. In order to appreciate the submission of the appellant, the facts in brief are as follow. 3. M/s Jindal Water Infrastructure Limited (appellant) had undertaken two projects separately for supply of goods and supply of services i.e. i. Barmer Project in Rajasthan and the other at ii. Sitarganj in Uttarakhand. 4. The applicant had entered into two contracts with M/s Raj West Power Limited ("purchaser") in respect of "Raw Water Piping and Pumping....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Plant and RO system for ELDCO SIDCUL Industrial Park at Sitarganj ("Sitarganj Project"). Similar to the Barmer Project, there were two agreements, one for supply of goods and other for civil work as under: a. Civil work contract dated 21.05.2008 for civil and structural work and handling over of 4MLD Common Effluent Treatment Plant and RO system. The value involved is Rs. 5.557 Crores ("Civil Work Contract") Involves use of goods like cement & steel. b. Supply contract dated 15-09-2008 for the supply, loading, stacking of mechanical, electrical equipment and instrumentation systems. The value involved is Rs. 8.304 Crores. ("Supply Contract") 8. The Ld. Counsel has taken us through the main clauses of separate contracts of supply of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....key project of laying of pipeline for water supply, sewage, etc. Accordingly, the Final Order needs to be recalled & modified for the ends of justice. 9. Heard Ld. AR for Revenue who states that the appellant by way of present ROM is seeking review of the Final Order, which is not permissible. 10. Having considered the rival contentions & also perusal of records. We find that there are separate contracts for supply of material & for erection work. There is no interlinking in the two contracts. Although the contracts are between the same parties. 11. We find, under the supply contract, the appellant have purchased the goods mainly from other manufactures/ supplier of goods and further resold the goods to principal, in the course of ....