TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (10) TMI 640
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....00/- have been confirmed along with interest and penalties under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, were also imposed on the appellant. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is inter alia engaged in the business of manufacturing cement and clinker at its factory located in Odisha. In this regard, the Appellant raises limestone from their captive mines at Lanjiberna by making use of various machineries like excavators, dumpers, etc. 2.1 During the underlying period, one of the customers of the Appellant ('Lessee') expressed their willingness to acquire the right to use the Appellant's Tata Hitachi Excavator, Model EX 1200 ('Excavator'), by acquiring lease of the same. In this regard, the Lessee placed the below reproduced W....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... - wages of driver, running charges etc. will be directly incurred and borne by DCBL. v) Payment - On submission of Invoice by OCL vi) Repair and Maintenance: DCBL shall be solely responsible for Repair and Maintenance of Excavator" 2.2 In light of the aforementioned relevant terms of the agreement, the transaction qualified to be a 'deemed sale'. Accordingly, the Appellant paid the due Central Sales Tax on the lease charges collected from the Lessee. 2.3 Based on the EA-2000 Audit of records of the Appellant, the underlying SCN was issued on the Appellant, proposing to demand service tax along with interest and penalty, on such lease charges collected from the Lessee during the underlying period-under the category '....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lkata, wherein this Tribunal held that supply of equipment to the customers for use attracts VAT and not service tax in accordance with the clear terms of the agreement entered into between the Appellant and the customers. In that circumstances, the present appeal be allowed after setting aside the impugned order. 4. The ld.A.R. for the Revenue has justified the impugned order. 5. Heard both the parties and considered the submissions. 6. We find that the fact is not in dispute that on the transaction amount, the appellant has paid VAT for transfer of their right to use for equipments. In that circumstances, the appellant is not liable to pay service tax as held by this Tribunal in the case of M/s Gainwell Commosales Vs. Commr. of C....