2019 (3) TMI 450 - AT - Service Tax

Demand of service tax - Management Maintenance and Repair and Erection Commissioning and Installation Services - case of assessee is that the services during the relevant period were provided to various government authorities under their work order and as such the same were exempted for payment of service tax in terms of Entry No.12 of the Mega Exemption Notification No.25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 - Held that - The adjudicating authority has itself recorded in the order that appellant has carried out maintenance and repair works which does not only include electrification hence there is no reason for denying exemption to the appellant as they are undoubtedly repair and maintenance of civil structures meant predominantly for use other than for commerce industry or any other business or profession hence covered under the scope of entry 12 (a) of Mega Exemption Notification No.25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012. The findings of the Adjudicating Authority are correct and there are no infirmity in the same - Revenue has not advanced any justifiable ground so as to establish the said order to be perverse - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues involved: Appeal against order allowing respondent's appeal based on exemption under Mega Exemption Notification No.25/2012-ST.

Analysis:
1. Facts and Proceedings: The respondents were registered under specific services with the Service Tax Department. After an investigation, a show cause notice was issued proposing service tax confirmation, interest, and penalties. The Original Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demands, interest, and penalties.

2. Grounds of Appeal: The Revenue appealed against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) who accepted the assessee's stand on exemption under Entry No.12 of the Mega Exemption Notification No.25/2012-ST. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the services provided to government authorities were exempted from service tax under the said entry.

3. Exemption Claim: The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the services provided by the appellant, including maintenance and repair works, fell under the scope of entry 12 (a) of the Mega Exemption Notification. The Adjudicating Authority's contention that the works were not exempted under the Notification was rejected based on the nature of the services provided.

4. Judicial Review: The Tribunal found no infirmity in the findings of the Adjudicating Authority and noted that the Revenue failed to establish any justifiable ground to challenge the order. The Tribunal concluded that the repair and maintenance works carried out by the appellant were covered under the exemption notification.

5. Decision: The Tribunal upheld the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and rejected the Revenue's appeal, citing no reason to interfere in the impugned order. The decision was pronounced on 08/03/2019 by the Tribunal.

This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the legal judgment, focusing on the grounds of appeal, exemption claim under the Mega Exemption Notification, judicial review by the Tribunal, and the final decision rendered in the case.