2012 (6) TMI 242 - AT - Service Tax

G.T.A. service and maintenance and repair service activity - Held that - transportation of faulty transformer was made under a different contract while repair and maintenance of transformer was done under a different contract and both being different contracts are governed by their own terms, no merit in stay application and appeal of Revenue. - appeal of Revenue dismissed

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the services of maintenance and repair, and G.T.A. service provided by the respondent are integrally connected or separable for taxation purposes.

Analysis:
The main issue in this case before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi was whether the services provided by the respondent, namely maintenance and repair service and G.T.A. service, were integrally connected or separable. The Revenue argued that the activities of maintenance and repair, along with the transportation of faulty transformers, should be considered as one service falling under maintenance and repair. On the other hand, the respondent contended that the transportation of faulty transformers and the subsequent repair and maintenance were carried out under separate contracts governed by their own terms.

The Tribunal carefully examined the show cause notice, which clearly outlined the existence of a maintenance and repair contract with two distinct parts: lifting faulty transformers and repairing them. The first appellate authority's decision to allow the appeal was based on the understanding that transportation was a separate activity from repair and maintenance. The Tribunal found merit in this reasoning and upheld the decision, emphasizing that the transport charges specified in the contract were separate from the repair and maintenance value.

After hearing extensive arguments from both sides and reviewing the pleadings and evidence on record, the Tribunal concluded that the transportation of faulty transformers and the repair services provided by the respondent were indeed two distinct activities. As a result, the Tribunal dismissed the stay application and appeal of the Revenue, affirming the sound reasoning of the first appellate authority in treating these activities as separate for taxation purposes.

In summary, the Tribunal's judgment clarified that the services of maintenance and repair, and G.T.A. service provided by the respondent were deemed separable based on the terms of the contracts and the nature of the activities involved. The decision highlighted the importance of examining the specific details of each contract to determine the tax implications of different services provided by a taxpayer.