2009 (7) TMI 80 - AT - Service Tax

Job Work Activity Versus Repair and Maintenance Activity first appellate authority confirmed that appellant has provided repair and maintenance service to its customers according to petitioner is an assessee under Central Excise Act, 1944 and such fact is clear from the show cause notice - He submits that there is no document showing repair and maintenance carried out by the appellant and nothing has been brought on record to make such allegation against the appellant Held that - There is nothing on record to show the manner how activities were carried out by the appellant to conclude that repair and maintenance charges were received instead of job work charges. Also there is no contract document available on record to explain the nature of repair and maintenance carried out demand set aside.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to first appellate order confirming adjudication on repair and maintenance services.
2. Interpretation of job work charges versus repair and maintenance charges.
3. Absence of documentary evidence for repair and maintenance activities.

Analysis:

Issue 1: The appellant challenged the first appellate order confirming adjudication that repair and maintenance services were provided to customers. The appellant claimed to be an assessee under the Central Excise Act, 1944, with consideration received related to job work. The appellant argued that there was no evidence of repair and maintenance activities, citing previous Tribunal decisions supporting their position. The appeal sought to set aside the impugned order based on the lack of documentation supporting repair and maintenance allegations.

Issue 2: The Respondent contended that repair and maintenance were disguised as job work charges by the appellant, with consideration received against these activities. The Commissioner (Appeals) highlighted that the Revenue's attention was diverted by the appellant's claims of job work, leading to adverse findings against the appellant by both authorities. The argument was that the adjudication should not be interfered with based on the concurrent findings of the authorities.

Issue 3: After hearing both sides and reviewing the record, the Tribunal found no evidence demonstrating how the activities were conducted by the appellant to establish that repair and maintenance charges were received instead of job work charges. Additionally, there was a lack of contract documentation explaining the nature of repair and maintenance services provided. Due to the absence of documentary evidence, the Tribunal granted the appellant the benefit of cited decisions and allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order.

This judgment underscores the importance of maintaining clear documentation to support the nature of services provided and the consideration received, especially in cases where activities could be misconstrued. The Tribunal's decision was based on the lack of tangible evidence supporting the allegations of repair and maintenance services, ultimately benefiting the appellant in this dispute.