2013 (9) TMI 254 - AT - Service Tax

Management, Maintenance or Repair Service main issue arises as to whether the applicant was rendering the service of maintenance of the leased line Held that - court found that on a perusal of the work order the charges in respect of maintenance of leased line would be liable to be paid either it is intra - city or intercity- It is also noted that maintenance charges will be paid to the applicant with effect from the month of commissioning in the slab under the work order the applicant would provide technical-skilled persons for resolving the issues of circuit leased lines - there is also factual dispute on this issue in respect of its coverage under facilitation service or maintenance of the leased line. Waiver of pre deposit - applicant failed to make out a prima facie case for waiver of pre deposit of entire amount of tax and penalty- thus the applicant is directed to deposit the sum for pre deposit on such submission stay would be allowed - application decided with conditions in the favour of the applicant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Change of respondent's name in cause title.
2. Stay application for waiver of predeposit of tax.
3. Determination of whether the applicant was rendering maintenance service of leased lines.

Analysis:
1. The Tribunal allowed the application for changing the respondent's name in the cause title to "Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai" from "Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-III."

2. The applicant sought a waiver of predeposit of tax amounting to Rs.2,14,65,932/- along with interest and penalty. The applicant, registered for "Maintenance or Repair Service," was alleged to have provided maintenance of leased circuits for WAN Links falling under the said service category. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand for tax, interest, and penalty for the period between July'04 to March'08.

3. The applicant, acting as a sub-contractor, was claimed to provide services to system integrators like WIPRO for leased lines belonging to BSNL and MTNL. The applicant argued that they were only facilitating new lines and fault identification as per instructions and had no direct access to maintenance. The Tribunal examined the work order from WIPRO, indicating maintenance of leased lines by the applicant. The Tribunal found a factual dispute regarding whether the applicant's activities fell under facilitation service or maintenance of leased lines. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the applicant to deposit Rs.50,00,000/- within six weeks, with a waiver of the remaining predeposit upon compliance, and stayed recovery pending appeal.

4. The Tribunal concluded that the issue revolved around whether the applicant was indeed providing maintenance services for leased lines, a point contested by the revenue based on the work order. The Tribunal noted the payment terms for maintenance services and the provision of technical-skilled personnel by the applicant. Due to the factual dispute and the failure to establish a prima facie case for full waiver of predeposit, the Tribunal ordered the partial deposit and granted a stay on recovery pending appeal.

Conclusion:
The judgment addressed the change in the cause title, the application for waiver of predeposit of tax, and the determination of whether the applicant's services constituted maintenance of leased lines. The Tribunal directed a partial deposit, waiver of the remaining predeposit upon compliance, and stayed recovery pending appeal, highlighting the need to establish a prima facie case for full waiver of predeposit.