2016 (2) TMI 289 - AT - Service Tax

Valuation - repair and maintenance activities - demands have been raised on the material components utilized in repair and maintenance work of LPG cylinders carried out by the appellant holding the same to be consumables, thereby not having any element of deemed transferred of property in the same. - Held that - the issue is no longer res-integra. It has been explained in the decision by the Apex Court that service tax and sales tax are mutually exclusive. Further following the ruling of the Apex Court in the case of Pro Lab and others (supra) and Balaji Tirupati Enterprises (All-HC)), we hold that the ld. Commissioner is in error in Levying tax on the material component involved in repair and maintenance of the cylinders carried out by the appellant. Thus, the impugned order is set aside - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Taxability of material components used in repair and maintenance work of LPG cylinders for service tax purposes.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Taxability of material components
The Appellant, M/s Tirupati Cylinders Ltd., appealed against an Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut I, which raised demands on the material components used in repair and maintenance work of LPG cylinders. The Commissioner held that the material components were consumables, not involving any deemed transfer of property. The Appellant contended that they were discharging VAT/sales tax on the material components and provided evidence to support their position. The Commissioner confirmed the demands, imposing penalties under various sections of the Act. The Commissioner also denied exemption claimed for material components under a specific notification. The Appellant argued that recent Supreme Court judgments and previous Tribunal rulings supported their position that the material components should not be taxed. The Appellant cited cases where similar issues were decided in favor of the taxpayer. The Appellant challenged the extended period invoked for the demand, stating there was no suppression, fraud, or contumacious conduct. The Appellant prayed for setting aside the impugned order.

Issue 2: Legal Precedents and Arguments
The Appellant's counsel referred to a Supreme Court case and previous Tribunal rulings to support their argument that the material components used in repair and maintenance work should not be subject to service tax. They highlighted the distinction between goods and services, emphasizing that the dominant intention behind the contract determines taxability. The counsel also cited a case where toners and developers were held to be taxable under VAT in a maintenance contract. Additionally, the counsel relied on High Court judgments where repair and maintenance services involving goods were not subject to service tax. The counsel argued that spare parts used in maintenance services were considered sold and not taxable under service tax. The counsel challenged the invocation of the extended period for the demand, citing the timely filing of returns and payment of admitted taxes as evidence of no suppression, fraud, or contumacious conduct.

Issue 3: Tribunal's Decision
After considering the arguments, the Tribunal found the issue was no longer res-integra. Citing previous Supreme Court and High Court judgments, the Tribunal held that service tax and sales tax are mutually exclusive. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in a specific case and a High Court ruling, the Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner erred in levying tax on the material components used in the repair and maintenance of cylinders. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the Appellant was entitled to consequential benefits as per the law.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive overview of the issues involved, the legal precedents cited, and the Tribunal's decision on the taxability of material components in repair and maintenance work for service tax purposes.