TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (3) TMI 229
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....31.03.2013. He confirmed the demand of Rs. 87,68,915/- upon the appellant under the proviso to Section 73 (1) of the Finance Act, 1994. He further imposed a penalty upon the appellant under Section 78 and ordered recovery of interest under Section 75. 2. We have heard both sides and perused the records. 3. The appellant is a proprietorship concern engaged in Government contracts. It provided management, maintenance or repair services to Delhi Jal Board during the relevant period. It is registered with the service tax department and had discharged service tax liability under management, maintenance or repair services. After the introduction of negative list in 2012, the services rendered by the appellant were exempted. The Commissioner has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....upply of tangible goods" without transferring effective control over them" and hence is chargeable to service tax under the head supply of tangible goods service. 6. The goods, in question, are Gensets which, according to the Revenue, have been supplied by the appellant to Delhi Jal Board without transferring effective control. If effective control was transferred such supply would have been covered under the definition of deemed sale under Article 366 (29A) and such supply would have been exigible to VAT by the State Government. 7. The case of the appellant is that the nature of contract is not one of supply of diesel Genset but is one of making an arrangement for pumping water during power failure. If the power fails, the booster ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not for supplying diesel Genset. Therefore, no service tax can be levied on it under the head of supply of tangible goods service and the appellant has already discharged service tax on management, maintenance and repair services. So far as the value of the materials required for providing this service, such as, diesel, lubricating oil etc. is concerned, learned Chartered Accountant submits that the value of such materials cannot be included in the gross value of services. He relies on the following case laws :- (i) Safety Retreading Co. (P) Ltd. versus Commissioner of C. Ex., Salem - 2017 (48) S.T.R. 97 (S.C.) ; (ii) CCE vs. JP Transformers, 2014 - (36) S.T.R. 961 (All.) ; and (iii) CCE, Agra vs. Goverdhan Transformers Udhyog Pvt. L....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Services 01.04.2009 to 30.06.2012 01.07.2012 to 31.03.2013 Total Demand Supply of Tangible Goods Services 19,81,275 2,38,243 22,19,518 Management, Maintenance or Repair Services 62,42,440 3,06,957 65,49,397 Total 82,23,715 5,45,200 87,68,915 11. Learned Chartered Accountant for the appellant submits that so far as this part of the contract is concerned, it is undisputed that the appellant had discharged service tax on the service component of the contract and had paid VAT on the goods component on the contract. He relies on the following case laws decided by this Tribunal in respect of other contractors with similar contracts to Delhi Jal Board. (i) M/s Gogia Brothers versus CST, Delhi [2017 (1) TMI 163 - ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ity of connecting and disconnecting the Diesel Gensets as and when the power goes or is restored respectively. In our considered view, this cannot be called supply of tangible goods but is a contract for maintenance and management of the arrangement for pumping water. The appellant has already discharged service tax under the head Management, Maintenance and Repair Services. As far as the cost of diesel, mobile oil, etc. is concerned, these were required for the maintenance, incurred by the appellant and reimbursed by the Delhi Jal Board. Therefore, these reimbursements cannot be called consideration for rendering service. Therefore, the entire demand made in the show cause notice and confirmed in the impugned order towards supply of tangib....