TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 297
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the case are as under: 2. The facts of the case are as under: 2.1. The appellant carries on the business of manufacture and sale of iron and steel products. For the said purposes the appellant has, inter alia, integrated steel plants at different places of the country. One such plant is situated at Durgapur in the State of West Bengal and is known as "Durgapur Steel Plant" (in short, "DSP"). The instant appeal relates to the said DSP of the appellant. 2.2. DSP is duly registered under the Central Excise Act, 1944 as well as the Finance Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for carrying out manufacturing and other activities in the said integrated steel plant (hereinafter referred to as the "said factory"). 2.3. As....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....p Corporation, China, was a consortium member and contractor. Under the said contract, the said foreign consortium was awarded the contract for design and engineering, supply of plant and equipment, refractories, erections, testing, commissioning, etc., for the Coal Dust Injection System in the said project. 2.7. Since none of the three foreign companies had any office in India, service tax liability under the Act on the services provided by the said three parties was the liability of DSP. Relevant materials on record would demonstrate that DSP has duly complied with the said obligation as per Section 66A of the Act read with Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Rules"). DSP duly complied ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Commissioner to the correct facts and law on the issue and to the misconceived nature and patent untenability of the allegations made in the show cause notice and requested for dropping of the proceedings initiated by the show cause notice. 2.10. The authorised representatives of DSP also appeared at the personal hearing in connection with the adjudication proceedings under the said show cause notice before the Commissioner on July 26, 2016 and made further submissions, while reiterating the statements and submissions made in its reply dated July 26, 2016 and again requested that the misconceived proceedings initiated against DSP be dropped. 2.11. Thereafter, a further personal hearing was held on February 15, 2017 by the Commi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the facts are not in dispute that for setting of Reheating Furnace, the appellant entered into a contract with one Bric Mont Inc., USA, and that said contract was for design and engineering, supply of plant and equipment, refractories, erections, testing, commissioning etc. For the aid project at the factory premises and also entered into a contract for design and engineering supply of plant and equipment, refractories, erections, testing, commissioning, etc for a Bloom Caster project. Further for Coal Dust project to be set up at said factory with a Consortium in which M/s. Beijing Sino-Steel Industry & Trade Group Corporation, China was a consortium member and contractor. Under the said contract, the said foreign consortium was award....