2011 (8) TMI 420 - AT - Service Tax

Demand - Limitation - Tax liability - appellant entered into a contract with M/s Kota Thermal Power Station for maintenance and repair of the plant - The clauses of the contract show that the same was for routine break down repairs and maintenance etc. - Revenue by entertaining a view that the said activities undertaken by the appellant amounted to providing of service under the category of maintenance and repair services, which were liable to tax, initiated proceedings were against the appellant by way of issuance of Show Cause Notices - Held that - the Tribunal has already held against the appellant on merits - As such, by following the said decision hold that the appellants were liable to pay service tax on the services provided under the said contract.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Identification of service tax liability for maintenance and repair services provided under a contract with M/s Kota Thermal Power Station, applicability of the extended period for demand, consideration of bonafide belief in not discharging service tax liability, waiver of penalty under Section 80 of the Finance Act.

Analysis:

Service Tax Liability for Maintenance and Repair Services:
The appellant entered into a contract with M/s Kota Thermal Power Station for maintenance and repair of the plant, which included routine breakdown repairs and maintenance activities. The Revenue contended that these activities amounted to providing services falling under the maintenance and repair category, making them liable for service tax. Show Cause Notices were issued, leading to demands of duties and penalties on the appellant.

Appellant's Position on Merits and Limitation:
The appellant's representative acknowledged that similar cases involving contracts with M/s Kota Thermal Power Station had been decided against the appellants. However, it was argued that the Tribunal had allowed appeals on the point of limitation in a related case, emphasizing the bonafide belief held by the appellants regarding the nature of the contract and the applicability of service tax. The demand beyond the limitation period was challenged, seeking a waiver of penalties and re-quantification of service tax within the limitation period.

Revenue's Argument and Tribunal's Decision:
The Revenue argued that the appellants should have been aware of their service tax liability for maintenance activities under the contract with M/s Kota Thermal Power Station. The Tribunal, considering similar cases, had already held that service tax was applicable to such contracts. However, the Tribunal also recognized the bonafide belief of the appellants regarding the nature of the contract and the evolving service tax laws during the relevant period.

Tribunal's Decision on Limitation and Penalty:
The Tribunal, in line with a previous judgment, held that demands raised beyond the normal limitation period were time-barred. The penalty imposed on the appellants was set aside based on the legitimate belief held by the appellants regarding their service tax liability. The appeals were allowed on the grounds of limitation and penalty, with the matter remanded for re-quantification of the demand within the limitation period, treating the value as cum duty price.

Conclusion:
The appeal of one appellant was allowed entirely, while the appeals of other appellants were allowed concerning limitation and penalty. The demands falling within the limitation period were to be re-quantified, considering the entire amount collected as cum duty price. The penalty imposed on all appellants was set aside, following the Tribunal's decision on bonafide belief and reasonable cause for not discharging service tax liability.