2015 (9) TMI 1575 - AT - Service Tax

Maintenance and Repair Service - demand on the ground that the appellant provided the service of retreading of tyres which was covered under Maintenance and Repair Service - time limitation - penalty - Held that - In the case of PLA Tyre Works 2007 (8) TMI 91 - CESTAT CHENNAI CESTAT clearly held that the impugned service is covered under maintenance and repair service - Bona fide belief is not a hallucinatory belief but a belief of a reasonable person operating in an appropriate environment. Thus there was no scope for a bona fide belief that the impugned service is tantamount to repair or maintenance of motor vehicle and therefore the extended period is rightly invoked and penalty under Section 78 ibid is attracted - appeal dismissed - decided against Appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Service tax demand on retreading of tyres under Maintenance and Repair Service.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 24-6-2009, which upheld the Order-in-Original dated 14-11-2008, confirming a service tax demand of Rs. 1,03,575 along with interest and penalties for the period 16-6-2005 to 31-1-2007. The appellant was found to have provided the service of retreading of tyres, considered under Maintenance and Repair Service, without paying the due service tax, involving wilful misstatement and suppression of facts to evade tax.

The appellant's advocate contended that since tyres are part of motor vehicles and maintenance and repair of vehicles are excluded from the purview of maintenance and repair service, the demand was not sustainable. However, the advocate acknowledged that the deduction of the cost of value of rubber used for repair was rightfully extended by the Commissioner (Appeals). The advocate also cited previous judgments to argue that the extended period in this case should not be invoked.

The Tribunal considered the contentions presented. It was determined that the appellant was engaged in the business of retreading tyres, which was not equivalent to maintenance and repair, including re-conditioning or restoration of motor vehicles. Referring to a previous case, PLA Tyre Works, the Tribunal established that the service provided by the appellant fell under maintenance and repair service. The Tribunal dismissed the appellant's argument that it did not pay service tax because it believed it was providing maintenance and repair service for motor vehicles, stating that this belief was not reasonable in an appropriate environment. The Tribunal emphasized that a bona fide belief must be that of a reasonable person operating in a suitable environment, and in this case, there was no justification for such a belief. Consequently, the extended period was deemed appropriate, and a penalty under Section 78 was imposed.

Based on the analysis, the Tribunal found no merit in the appellant's case and dismissed the appeal, upholding the service tax demand on the retreading of tyres under Maintenance and Repair Service.