2015 (12) TMI 1494 - AT - Service Tax

Demand of service tax - Maintenance and Repair Service - major part of the demand relates to the period 28/11/2003 to 16/06/2005 - Held that - Service tax liability arises only if the service is provided under maintenance contract or an agreement and in relation to maintenance or repair or servicing of any goods or equipment. In the case in hand, the first appellate authority as well as the adjudicating authority has clearly recorded that the appellant had carried out electrical work at various parts of the service recipient s factory. On perusal of the impugned order, at paragraph No.10, we find that the work-order issued to the appellant indicates that the activity carried out by the appellant is in respect of wiring and fixing of lights which would not fall under the category of maintenance or repair service of any goods or equipment during the relevant period. We also find that the Tribunal in the case of Basant Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Central Excise 2011 (4) TMI 550 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI has considered an identical issue and held in favour of the assessee therein. We find that the said ratio would be applicable in the case in hand also, upto 16/06/2005 - for the period post 16/06/2005, in the appellant s case, service tax liability of ₹ 5,084/- along with interest has to be upheld - Decided partly in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Service tax liability under the category of 'Maintenance and Repair Service' for the period 28/11/2003 to 25/07/2005.

Analysis:
The appeal challenged the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Nagpur regarding service tax liability for 'Maintenance and Repair Service.' The lower authorities found the appellant liable, but the appellant argued that the amounts received were for electrical work under a rate contract. The issue revolved around the interpretation of the definition of 'Maintenance or Repair Service' under Section 65 of the Finance Act for the relevant period. The definition required the service to be provided under a maintenance contract or an agreement and in relation to maintenance or repair of goods or equipment.

The Tribunal analyzed the work carried out by the appellant, which involved wiring and fixing lights in the service recipient's factory. It was determined that this work did not fall under the category of 'maintenance or repair service' for goods or equipment. Referring to a precedent decision, the Tribunal held that activities performed under a rate contract, such as the appellant's, were not covered by the definition of maintenance and repair service before 16/06/2005. Therefore, the service tax liability for the period up to 16/06/2005 was not applicable to the appellant.

For the period post 16/06/2005, the Tribunal found that there was a service tax liability of Rs. 5,084 along with interest, which the appellant was required to discharge. However, considering that the bulk of the demand was set aside due to the nature of the appellant's activities, no penalty was imposed even for the confirmed service tax amount. The appeal was disposed of accordingly, with the Tribunal upholding the service tax liability for the period after 16/06/2005 but relieving the appellant of liability for the earlier period due to the nature of the services provided.