2009 (7) TMI 77 - AT - Service Tax

Technical inspection and certification service - the assessees undertakes to do job work on the materials sent by the Space Research Stations at Sriharikotta and Trivandrum - Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the contention of the assessees that they are not rendering any technical inspection and certification service and therefore not liable to pay service tax Held that - There is no evidence to show that they have conducted any test or technical inspection or issued any certificate to the customer which is a pre-requisite of technical inspection and certification services. Further more, a certificate has been issued by the Scientific Officer of Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research (IGCAR), Kalpakkam to the effect that the materials were sent to the assessees for bending job only and not for any kind of testing and such certificate was also produced before the adjudicating authority order of commissioner (appeals) maintained.

Summary

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, CHENNAI, in the 2009 (7) TMI 77 - CESTAT, CHENNAI citation, heard an appeal from the Revenue against an order by the Commissioner (Appeals) in favor of the assessees. The issue at hand was whether the assessees were liable to pay service tax for rendering technical inspection and certification services. The definition of such services under Section 65 (108) of the Finance Act, 1994, involves the inspection or examination of goods, processes, or materials to certify that they meet specified standards. However, in this case, the assessees were found to be doing job work for Space Research Stations without conducting any technical inspection or issuing certificates. A certificate from the Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research confirmed that the materials were sent for bending job only, not testing. As a result, the service provided by the assessees did not fall under technical inspection and certification services, and no service tax liability was established. The appeal by the Revenue to impose service tax under a different category was dismissed due to lack of evidence and findings. The Tribunal upheld the original order and rejected the appeal. The judgement was dictated and pronounced in open court by Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President, with Shri R.P. Meena representing the Appellant and Shri M. Karthikeyan representing the Respondent.