2018 (2) TMI 1866

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....i, Advocate For The Respondents : Mr Kumar Voikram, Advocate ORDER B. Ravichandran, Member (T) 1. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order dated 21-12-2012 of Commissioner (Appeals-I), Raipur. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of iron and steel products. While installing power plant for such manufacture, the respondent entered into a contract with....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ackground, proceedings were initiated against the respondent to demand and recover Service Tax on reverse charge basis on the consideration paid by them to the foreign service provider. The original authority confirmed Service Tax liability along with penalty. On appeal, vide the impugned order the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the original order holding that the CERs are 'goods' sold b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed countries. The generation of CERs and their saleability is no doubt are in terms of Kyoto Protocol of international convention. However, the respondent did not receive any statutory service from UK Company and the transaction is purely commercial in nature. The terms of the agreement and the manner of consideration to be paid clearly make it that the services received by the respondent are cove....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....The CDM project implemented in such power plant resulted in generation of carbon credits (CERs), which were further transferred on consideration to others by the respondent. As per the agreement 7=% of the total consideration is retained by UK Company, who facilitated by way of consultancy and other related activities in the creation of CDM project. We note that the impugned order misdirected itse....