2015 (1) TMI 415 - AT - Service Tax

Business Auxiliary Service - business of maintenance and repair of retreading tyres - Held that - appellants are engaged in the business of maintenance and repair of retreading tyres. The appellants paid service tax under the category of Business Auxiliary Service only on labour charges after deducting 70% towards material cost on the gross retreading charges. - As Tribunal in assessee s own previous case remanded matter back therefore, following that decision - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Applicability of service tax on maintenance and repair services of retreading tyres under Business Auxiliary Service category.
2. Interpretation of Tribunal's previous order and its impact on the present case.

Issue 1: Applicability of service tax on maintenance and repair services of retreading tyres under Business Auxiliary Service category
The judgment addresses the issue of whether the appellants correctly paid service tax under the Business Auxiliary Service category only on labor charges after deducting 70% towards material cost on the gross retreading charges. The Tribunal found that the appellants were engaged in the business of maintenance and repair of retreading tyres and had paid service tax in a specific manner. The decision emphasized the need for proper adjudication by the authority in accordance with law, ensuring a fair opportunity of hearing before reaching a final decision. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, indicating that the matter needed to be re-evaluated by the adjudicating authority to decide the case afresh.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Tribunal's previous order and its impact on the present case
The judgment referred to a previous order by the Tribunal in the applicant's own case, where the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for denovo adjudication. This remand was based on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in a specific case. Considering the Tribunal's previous action in a similar case, the judgment concluded that the present matter should also be adjudicated afresh by the adjudicating authority. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for a fresh decision, emphasizing the importance of providing a proper opportunity for hearing before reaching a final decision. The stay application was disposed of in light of these considerations.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues addressed, the Tribunal's findings, and the course of action to be taken regarding the applicability of service tax and the interpretation of previous orders in the context of the present case.