COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BHOPAL Vs. SONALI INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS both the appeals of the Revenue arise out of same impugned order and issue is identical, we dispose of both the appeals by common order. Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue has filed the present appeal. Nobody appeared for the respondents. Accordingly, we have heard Shri M.S. Negi, learned DR appearing for the Revenue.

(2.) AS per facts on record, the respondents entered into the contract with M/s. IOCL for erection of tanks and pumps. The said tank and pump were supplied by M/s. IOCL. The service provider, discharged Service Tax liability after claiming the abatement of 67% in terms of Notification No. , dated 1 -3 -2006.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY it is not Revenue's case that the tanks and pumps were sold by the service provider to M/s. IOCL in which case, the finding arrived at by Commissioner (Appeals) are in accordance with the provisions of notification. In any case, it is the tanks and pumps which have to be installed and the services were availed for the installation of tanks and pumps. As such, in our views such tanks and pumps which are required to be installed themselves, cannot be considered to be material supplied by the clients for installing any other goods.