2012 (9) TMI 54 - AT - Service Tax

Demand of service tax - appellants are engaged in the business of manufacture/ import and sale of photocopiers, printers, scanners, fax machines etc. - appellants also undertake maintenance of such machines sold to their customers - Revenue was of the view that since the essential character of these contracts are for providing service of maintenance and business support and since such services could not have been provided without supply of the materials involved the contract could not be split into service component and component of supply of materials Held that - Once it is recognised that there is sale of goods involved in such contracts and the sale can be treated as a separate component they were eligible for the exemption under Notification No. 12/2003-ST providing exemption from goods sold in the course of providing service - value of material sold is actually more than the value for which exemption is claimed - no further service tax is due from the appellants - waiver of pre-deposit granted

Summary

Issues:
- Whether the appellants were correctly paying service tax on the contracts involving maintenance and business support services.
- Whether the contracts can be split into a service component and a component of supply of materials for taxation purposes.
- Whether the appellants are eligible for exemption under Notification No. 12/2003-ST.
- Whether the appellants provided necessary documents to support their claim for exemption.
- Whether the value of materials sold can be segregated based solely on the value on which VAT is paid.

Analysis:
1. The appellants were engaged in providing maintenance and business support services involving various types of contracts, including Full Service Maintenance Agreements (FSMA), Spares and Services Maintenance Agreement (SSMA), Volume Based Service Agreement (VBSA), Annual Maintenance Contract (AMC), and Business Support Services (BSS). The dispute arose when the Revenue claimed that the appellants should pay service tax on the entire amounts billed to customers, including the value of materials supplied under the contracts.

2. The Revenue contended that since the contracts involved both services and supply of materials, the contracts could not be split into service and material components for taxation. A Show-Cause Notice was issued, demanding service tax on the value of materials on which tax was not paid, resulting in a substantial demand along with penalties.

3. The appellants argued that previous court decisions, including those by the Karnataka High Court and the Supreme Court, supported the view that the sale of materials in such contracts could be treated separately for taxation purposes. They also cited relevant cases where similar issues were examined in the context of service tax.

4. The appellants sought exemption under Notification No. 12/2003-ST, which provides an exemption for goods sold in the course of providing services. They claimed that the value of materials sold was more than what was calculated based on deemed provisions, and if calculated on an actual basis, the service component's value would be much less than the value on which they paid service tax.

5. The Revenue argued that the appellants did not provide necessary documents to support their claim for exemption under Notification No. 12/2003-ST. They contended that payment of VAT on a particular value could not be the sole basis for claiming exemption.

6. After considering the arguments from both sides and the precedents cited by the appellants, the Tribunal held that in contracts involving service provision like in this case, the service component and the value of materials can be separated. The Tribunal accepted the appellants' submission that the value of materials sold was actually more than the value for which exemption was claimed, leading to a situation where no further service tax was due. Consequently, the Tribunal granted a waiver of pre-deposit of dues and stayed the collection of such dues during the appeal's pendency.