Page 192 - GSTL_2nd July 2020 _Vol 38_Part 1

110 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 38
rived from the erection of plants for the purpose of levy of Service Tax. It is this
aspect that requires determination.
14. In reply to the show cause notice, the appellant specifically stated
that during the period 2007-08, M/s. J.K. Lakshmi Cement, M/s. Shree Cement
and M/s. Binani Cement had issued separate and specific work orders for mobi-
lization of labour and hire of cranes for their own use and that an amount of Rs.
5,50,53,066/- was received for this activity for which no Service Tax was required
to be paid. The various work orders for fabrication and erection were separate
from the work orders for hiring of cranes and mobilization/transportation of
labour.
15. The work orders issued for hiring of cranes and mobiliza-
tion/transport of labour have been examined. One such work order issued by
M/s. J.K. Lakshmi Cement for hiring of cranes dated 5 September, 2007 is at page
76 of the paper book and is as follows :-
“Sub. : Hiring of 1 No. 125 MT Cap. Telescopic Mobile Crane with 48 Mtrs.
Boom/5 Mtr Fly Jib for use at JK Lakshmi cement Ltd., Jaykaypuram (Raj.).
Ref. : Your offer dated 17-8-2007.
Dear Sir,
With reference to above, please refer discussions with our GM (Materials)
at HO on 20-8-2007, accordingly we are pleased to place our order for hir-
ing of above crane for use at our Plant at Jaykaypuram, Distt. Sirohi, Raja-
sthan on the following terms & conditions :-“
16. On record, at Page 79 of the paper book is another work order dat-
ed 11 July, 2007 issued by M/s. Binani Cement for supply of cranes and it is as
follows :-
“Sub. : Hiring of Latticed boom and Hydraulic telescopic boom cranes for
shifting of equipment and fabricated steel structure for our expansion pro-
ject at Binani Cement Ltd. P.O. Binanigram, Tehsil Pindwara, Distt. Sirohi
(Raj.)
Ref. : (a) Our mail dated 19-2-2007, 22-2-2007 letters BCL/Unit-II/06-07,
dated 2-3-2007, BCL/Unit-II/06-07/984, dated 24-3-2007 and BCL/Unit-
II/06-07/1003, dated 28-3-2007.
(b) Your mail HAPBCO/BCL-II/07, dated 21-2-2007 along with crane of-
fer and HAPB/UDR/BCL/1220/07-08, dated 26-3-2007
Dear Sirs,
As per your discussion with us at site, mails and letters as referred above,
we are pleased to award this work order for hiring of cranes for shifting of
equipment and fabricated steel structures for our expansion project at P.O.
Binanigram, as per the following terms and conditions :”
17. At pages 124 to 127 of the paper book is a Bill for manpower mobi-
lization.
18. The work orders/bills for supply of cranes/manpower mobilization
have been perused. It is seen these work orders/bills for supply of
cranes/mobilization of manpower are independent and have no connection at all
with the work order issued to the appellant for erection of plants. The ST-3 Re-
turn for the Financial Year 2007-08, which is at page 200 of the paper book, also
specifically mentions the amount received for supply of cranes/mobilization of
labour and states that it is an exempted service.
19. It is not in dispute that the appellant has been discharging the
Service Tax liability on the work orders issued for erection of plants. It is only the
GST LAW TIMES  2nd July 2020  192