2018 (2) TMI 1896

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....manabhan, Member (T) Ms. Nisha Bineesh, Advocate, for the Appellant. Dr. Ezhilmathi, Joint Commissioner (AR), for the Respondent. ORDER Per: V. Padmanabhan, Member (T) Miscellaneous Application has been filed by the appellant for restoration of the appeal which was dismissed for non-prosecution vide the Final Order No. 20189/2017, dated 2-2-2017. After considering the reasons mentio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ol as can be seen from the agreement executed by the appellant with their customer. In terms of C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 334/1/2008-TRU, dated 29-2-2008, she submitted that the service will not fall within the tangible goods service and no service tax will be liable to be paid. She also relied upon the decision this Tribunal in the case of Kinetic Communications Ltd. v. CCE, Pune-I [2017 (3) G.S.T....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the appellant has handed over legal possession of equipments to the user. 6. In the TRU clarification, dated 29-2-2008, para 4.4 deals with the supply of tangible goods service. TRU has clarified as follows in paras 4.4.1 & 4.4.2 : - 4.4.1 Transfer of the right to use any goods is leviable to sales tax/VAT as deemed sale of goods [Article 366(29A)(d) of the Constitution of India], Tra....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... we note that such legal right of possession and effective control is transferred. Consequently, the service does not fall within the category of SOTG service. 7. We note that an identical issue has come up before Tribunal in the case of Kinetic Communications (supra) in which the Tribunal has set aside the demand for service tax under above category. In the above case, the Tribunal has observe....