9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2007 (7) TMI 198 - AT - Service TaxContention of applicant is that the demand was confirmed treating the contract entered between the applicants & Electricity Boards as the applicants were providing service for maintenance & repair - contention of applicant is that they are not providing of any service regarding maintenance contracts are only for repair - as per the agreement as the contracts are for maintenance also therefore prima facie applicant has no case for total waiver of pre-deposit
Issues: Application for waiver of pre-deposit of service tax and penalties; Demand confirmation based on service for maintenance and repair; Time-bar defense raised by the applicant.
The judgment pertains to an application for waiver of pre-deposit of service tax and penalties. The applicant contended that the demand was confirmed based on treating the contract with Electricity Boards as providing service for maintenance and repair, while asserting that they were only providing repair services, not maintenance. The revenue, represented by the SDR, argued that the contract encompassed routine maintenance of a coal handling plant along with necessary repairs, supported by a clause for shift maintenance in the contract annexure. Regarding the defense of being time-barred, the applicant claimed that no suppression could be alleged against them. The appellants presented a chart showing the service tax amount within the normal limitation period. The tribunal, after considering the facts and circumstances, found that since the contracts involved maintenance as well, the applicant did not have a case for a total waiver of pre-deposit. Consequently, specific amounts were directed to be deposited by the applicants within six weeks for certain appeals, while in two other appeals, the pre-deposit was waived due to the limitation issue. Upon the deposit of the specified amounts, the remaining service tax amounts were waived, and the case was adjourned to a later date for further proceedings. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in open court by the Vice-President.
|
