9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (6) TMI 584 - AT - Service TaxClassification of service - Maintenance or Repair Service or not - benefit of exemption N/N. 12/2003-ST dated 20.06.2003 - retained goods on value of service - Applicability of Rule 2A of the Service Tax Valuation Rules, 2006 - HELD THAT - Respondents are replacing Coil, Transformer Oil and other items. They are paying Service Tax only on Labour Charges whereas it is contention of Revenue that Respondent should pay Service Tax on entire cost including of all the goods which are used in repair and Respondents are also not eligible for benefit of exemption Notification 12/2003, dated 20-6-2003 since there is no documentary proof. On going through contract, it is noticed that contracts described the rate of each item of works. Further the invoices issued by the respondent clearly shown that the VAT has been paid by the Respondents on cost of materials which are used in repair maintenance. The explanation (c) of the Rule 2A(i) very clearly provides that value adopted for the purpose of payment of VAT shall be taken as the value of property in goods transferred in the execution of the said works contract for determination of value of service portion in the execution of works contract. The identical issue in the case of repair of transformer activity stands considered by the Tribunal in number of decisions. In the case of M/S BALAJI TIRUPATI ENTERPRISES VERSUS CCE, MEERUT-II 2014 (2) TMI 1137 - CESTAT NEW DELHI as also in the case of CCE, ALLAHABAD VERSUS M/S. KAILASH TRANSFORMERS 2014 (2) TMI 1136 - CESTAT NEW DELHI and in the case of HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LTD. VERSUS COMMR. OF SERVICE TAX, BANGALORE 2009 (9) TMI 163 - CESTAT, BANGALORE , the value of the goods used while carrying out repair activities was taken out of the service cost. Some of the said decisions stand confirmed by the Hon ble Supreme Court when the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed. Appeal of Revenue dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for exemption Notification No. 12/2003-ST. 2. Applicability of Rule 2A of the Service Tax Valuation Rules, 2006. 3. Determination of value of service portion in works contract. 4. Impact of retained goods on value of service. Summary: 1. Eligibility for exemption Notification No. 12/2003-ST: The respondent, M/s. Vidyut Transformers Pvt. Ltd., was availing the benefit of exemption Notification No. 12/2003-ST dated 20.06.2003, which exempts the value of goods and materials sold by the service provider to the recipient of service from service tax, provided there is documentary proof indicating the value of said goods and materials. The department contended that the respondent did not have documentary proof of VAT payment on the goods used in service, thus making them ineligible for the exemption. However, the Tribunal found that the contracts and invoices clearly showed VAT payment on the materials used, thus entitling the respondent to the benefit of the exemption notification. 2. Applicability of Rule 2A of the Service Tax Valuation Rules, 2006: For the period from 01.07.2012, the department argued that the respondent incorrectly applied Rule 2A(i) of the Service Tax Valuation Rules, 2006, which allows deduction of the value of goods transferred in the execution of works contract from the gross amount charged. The department claimed that the value of retained defective items was not properly accounted for. The Tribunal, however, noted that the value of goods/materials was separately shown in the contracts and invoices, and VAT was paid on these goods, thus justifying the application of Rule 2A(i). 3. Determination of value of service portion in works contract: The Tribunal examined Rule 2A, which provides for the determination of the value of taxable services in works contracts by excluding the value of goods transferred and VAT paid. The explanation (c) of Rule 2A(i) states that the value adopted for VAT payment shall be taken as the value of goods transferred for determining the value of the service portion. The Tribunal found that the respondent's documentation met these requirements, thus supporting the respondent's valuation method. 4. Impact of retained goods on value of service: The department alleged that the cost of retained defective items impacted the value of the service provided. The Tribunal observed that the contracts distinguished between the value of materials to be replaced and those to be retained, with no distinct price provided for labor. It concluded that the retention of goods only impacted the value of the goods to be replaced, not the value of the service. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the adjudicating authority's decision to drop the service tax demands, finding no merit in the department's allegations. The appeals of the Revenue were dismissed, and the cross-objection was disposed of. The Tribunal's decision was supported by precedents from the Supreme Court and High Courts, which confirmed that the value of goods used in repair activities should be excluded from the service cost. (Pronounced in the open court on 12.06.2024)
|
