2018 (6) TMI 668 - AT - Service Tax

Classification of services - rerubberisation of old, worn out rubberised rollers of various industries - whether rerubberisation undertaken by the appellants on behalf of their customers was classifiable under the category of Management, Maintenance or Repair Services or under the category of Business Auxiliary Services ? - Held that - Similar issue came up before this Tribunal, in the their own case M/S ZENITH ROLLERS LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE 2013 (12) TMI 620 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , wherein it has been held that the activities undertaken by the respondent merits classification under Business Auxiliary Service and not Management, Maintenance or Repair service, therefore, the impugned order is to be set aside. The demand cannot be confirmed against the respondent under management, maintenance or repair service - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Classification of services under 'Management, Maintenance or Repair Service' or 'Business Auxiliary Service' for re-rubberisation of rollers.

Analysis:
The case involved the classification of services provided by the appellants for re-rubberisation of old, worn-out rubberised rollers. The Revenue contended that the activity fell under 'Management, Maintenance or Repair Service' and not 'Business Auxiliary Service,' leading to the demand for Service Tax. The officers of DGCEI conducted investigations and concluded that the re-rubberisation amounted to reconditioning of used rollers, falling under 'Management, Maintenance or Repair Service.' Consequently, a Show Cause Notice was issued, demanding Service Tax, interest, and penalties. The Commissioner confirmed the demand in the impugned order, leading to the present appeal by the appellants.

The respondent's consultant argued that a similar issue was addressed by the Tribunal in a previous case where it was held that such activities should be classified under 'Business Auxiliary Service' and not 'Management, Maintenance or Repair Service.' After hearing both sides, the Tribunal noted the previous decision and upheld that the re-rubberisation activity should indeed be classified under 'Business Auxiliary Service.' Therefore, the demand for Service Tax under 'Management, Maintenance or Repair Service' was rejected, and the impugned order was upheld. Consequently, the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed.

In conclusion, the judgment focused on the proper classification of services provided by the appellants for re-rubberisation of rollers. The Tribunal relied on precedent and held that the activity should be classified under 'Business Auxiliary Service,' contrary to the Revenue's claim of falling under 'Management, Maintenance or Repair Service.' The decision emphasized the importance of accurate classification to determine the tax liability, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.