9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (4) TMI 1035 - AT - Service TaxN/N. 12/2003 dated 01.07.2003 - Repair and Maintenance Service - exemption denied on the material part on the ground that no supporting evidence of sale of goods during the course of providing such repair service by the appellants - Held that - Hon ble Supreme Court in Jain Brothers 2012 (7) TMI 935 - SUPREME COURT , to state that the cost of goods supplied during repair cannot be added to the value of the taxable service in view of the said exemption - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues: Entitlement for exemption under Notification No. 12/2003 dated 01.07.2003
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai dealt with the dispute regarding the entitlement of the appellant for exemption under Notification No. 12/2003 dated 01.07.2003. The appellants were engaged in providing "Repair and Maintenance Service" for damaged sea containers meant for International Goods Transport. The lower authority denied the exemption due to the lack of supporting evidence of the sale of goods during the repair service provided by the appellants. The appellants supported their claim with invoices that detailed repair charges, including container numbers, labor amount, material amount in US$, and service tax payable on the services. The invoices sufficiently indicated the complete details of services and materials used, including the entry of materials. The clarification issued by the Board and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jain Brothers case were referenced to support the exemption claim, stating that the cost of goods supplied during repair cannot be added to the value of the taxable service. The Ld. Advocate highlighted that in the appellant's other units in Tuticorin and Cochin, Revenue had dropped similar demands on the same issue, which had reached finality. The Tribunal, after analyzing the evidence and legal references, found no merit in the lower authority's order. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
|
