2011 (8) TMI 300 - AT - Service Tax

Breakdown repair and maintenance - Appellant entered into a contract with M/s Kota Thermal Power Station for maintenance and repair of the plant - Held that - there could be a definite legitimate belief of the appellant that they are not liable to discharge the service tax liability as per the agreement entered by them due to which the appellant may not have discharged service tax liability under Section 73(1) of Finance Act, 1994. Invoking the provisions of Section 80, we hold these being reasonable cause for the appellant to be believed that they need not discharge the service tax liability, the various penalties imposed on the appellant are set aside. - The matters are sent for re-quantification of the demand falling within the limitation and after treating the value as cum duty price - All the appeals are disposed of in the above manner.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the activities undertaken by the appellant for maintenance and repair services amount to providing taxable services under the category of maintenance and repair services?
2. Whether the demand raised by the Revenue is within the period of limitation?
3. Whether the penalty imposed on the appellant is justified?

Analysis:

Issue 1: Taxability of Maintenance and Repair Services
The appellant entered into a contract with M/s Kota Thermal Power Station for maintenance and repair of the plant. The Revenue contended that these activities fell under taxable maintenance and repair services. The Tribunal, in a previous case, held that similar contracts amounted to providing services under the maintenance and repair category, making them liable for service tax. The appellant's representative acknowledged this settled issue against them. However, the Tribunal also allowed appeals on the point of limitation and waived penalties in the previous case.

Issue 2: Demand within Limitation Period
The Revenue argued that the appellants should have been aware of their service tax liability for maintenance activities from 1.7.2003 to 12.1.2005, as per the Finance Act. The Revenue invoked the extended period due to lack of intimation or registration by the appellants. The Tribunal, considering the bonafide belief of the appellants regarding the nature of their contract and the evolving service tax laws during the relevant period, held that demands beyond the normal limitation period were time-barred. The demand in one appellant's case was fully time-barred, while in others, only a part of the demand was within the limitation period.

Issue 3: Justification of Penalty
The Tribunal found that the appellants had a legitimate belief that they were not liable to discharge service tax due to the nature of their agreement. Invoking Section 80 of the Finance Act, the Tribunal set aside the penalties imposed on the appellants, considering their reasonable cause for not discharging the service tax liability.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of one appellant entirely, setting aside the impugned order, and allowed the appeals of the other appellants on the grounds of limitation and penalty. The matters were remanded for re-quantification of the demand within the limitation period, treating the value as cum duty price. All appeals were disposed of accordingly.