9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Service tax demand, education cess, penalty imposition, operation and maintenance agreement, larger period of limitation, Major Maintenance Reserve (MMR), routine maintenance cost, consumables, service tax liability, Gross Taxable Value, limitation period, prima facie case.
Service tax demand and penalty imposition: The Commissioner demanded service tax and education cess amounting to over Rs. 1.3 crores from the appellants for the period July '03 to March '06 u/s 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, along with a significant penalty. The demand was based on the exclusion of certain elements from the Gross Taxable Value related to the operation and maintenance of a power plant under an O&M agreement with M/s. Samalpatti Power Company Pvt. Ltd. The department contended that service tax should have been paid on these excluded elements, leading to the issuance of a show-cause notice and subsequent adjudication by the Commissioner. Contention regarding Major Maintenance Reserve (MMR) and consumables: The Senior Advocate for the assessee argued that the MMR, being an amount held as a deposit with the principal company, should not be included in the Gross Taxable Value. Additionally, it was asserted that consumables used in routine maintenance, having already incurred sales tax, should not be considered for service tax levy as they are deemed to have been sold. Reference was made to a previous decision by the Bench which supported the position that no tax should have been paid on amounts collected for operation and maintenance services. The counsel also highlighted the absence of willful suppression by the assessee to justify the invocation of the larger limitation period. Prima facie case and waiver of pre-deposit: Upon review of the submissions, the Tribunal found merit in the Senior Advocate's arguments, particularly in light of the previous decision regarding the nature of services provided in similar cases. It was noted that the exclusion of certain elements from the taxable value was evident from the invoices, indicating no deliberate suppression by the assessee. Consequently, a waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery for the tax and penalty amounts were granted, considering the absence of willful suppression and the prima facie case presented by the Senior Advocate. Early posting of appeal: Due to the significant stakes involved in the case, the Tribunal agreed to the SDR's request for an early hearing of the appeal. The appeal was scheduled for a hearing on 29-1-2008 to expedite the resolution of the matter.
|
