2013 (11) TMI 869 - AT - Service Tax

Valuation (Service Tax) - Goods and materials sold by service provider to recipient of service - Retreading of tyres on job work basis - Maintenance and Repair service - tax paid on labour charges shown in the invoices and did not include cost of tread material procured - Notification No.12/03-ST Held that - Service provider is required to produce documentary proof specifically indicating the value of the said goods and materials so sold by them - invoices unilaterally raised by the appellants indicating the break-up without substantiating the amount attributable to the value of the goods supplied cannot be considered as documentary proof for the purposes of the said notification - assessee has not proved that the conditions under Notification 12/03 ST dated 20.06.2003 have been satisfied and, therefore, they are not entitled to the benefit of deduction of cost of raw materials consumed in providing the impugned service - Following decision of Safety Retreading Company Vs. CCE, Salem 2012 (6) TMI 719 - CESTAT, CHENNAI (THIRD MEMBER) - Stay granted partly.

Summary

Issues:
1. Liability of service tax on retreading of used tyres.
2. Benefit of Notification No. 12/2003-ST for exemption.
3. Pre-deposit requirement for admission of appeal.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Liability of service tax on retreading of used tyres
The judgment revolves around the liability of the applicant for service tax on the retreading of used tyres. The Revenue contended that this activity falls under the category of 'Maintenance and Repair Service,' necessitating the payment of service tax. A show-cause notice was issued for the period from April 2006 to August 2011, resulting in a confirmed amount against the applicant, inclusive of interest and penalty. The applicant, represented by counsel, argued that they were unaware of the service tax liability and did not collect any tax from customers. The crux of the matter was whether retreading amounts to a taxable service, leading to the demand raised by the Revenue.

Issue 2: Benefit of Notification No. 12/2003-ST for exemption
The applicant sought the benefit of Notification No. 12/2003-ST, which provides an exemption for the value of materials sold in the course of providing services. The counsel presented evidence in the form of VAT returns indicating payment of VAT on materials sold. They contended that if the exemption under the notification was applied for all years, the demand would reduce significantly. However, the Revenue opposed this claim, citing precedents where the Tribunal ordered pre-deposit in similar cases. The debate centered on whether the applicant could avail the exemption under the notification, impacting the quantum of the demand.

Issue 3: Pre-deposit requirement for admission of appeal
Considering the arguments from both sides, the Tribunal noted that a prior decision had been made against the assessee in a similar matter. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the applicant to pre-deposit 50% of the tax amount within eight weeks for admission of the appeal. Upon compliance with this pre-deposit, the balance dues were waived for admission of the appeal, with the collection stayed during the appeal's pendency. The Tribunal set a deadline for compliance, emphasizing the procedural aspect of pre-deposit for admission and stay of collection during appeal proceedings.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the liability for service tax on retreading activities, the application of exemptions under Notification No. 12/2003-ST, and the procedural requirement of pre-deposit for admission of the appeal. The decision provided clarity on these issues based on the arguments presented by the parties and relevant legal precedents.