2015 (7) TMI 928 - AT - Service Tax

Waiver of pre deposit - Classification of service - whether the activity of re-rubberizing of print rollers would attract service tax under the category of management, maintenance and repair service or under business auxiliary service - Held that - Decision in the case of Zenith Rollers Ltd. Vs CCE Noida 2013 (12) TMI 620 - CESTAT NEW DELHI followed wherein it was held that, the service to be falling under the category of business auxiliary services . If that be so, there would be exemption to the said activity in terms of Notification No 14/2004-ST. Appellants have also approached the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) who vide their decision as reported in 2009 (3) TMI 57 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS has held against the appellant. The Tribunal s decisions shall be applicable to the disputed issue which is for the period not covered by the A.A.R. judgment. - stay granted

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the activity of re-rubberizing of print rollers attracts service tax under 'management, maintenance and repair service' or 'business auxiliary service'.
2. Whether the decision of the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) is binding between the parties when the Tribunal's decision may not be applicable.

Analysis:
1. The dispute in the appeal revolves around determining if the re-rubberizing of print rollers falls under 'management, maintenance and repair service' or 'business auxiliary service' for service tax purposes. The Tribunal, in the case of Zenith Rollers Ltd. Vs CCE Noida ST/1020/2010, categorized such services as 'business auxiliary services', potentially exempting them under Notification No 14/2004-ST. Additionally, the Tribunal granted an unconditional stay for other appellants in similar situations. This decision sets a precedent for the current appeal, suggesting that the activity in question may indeed be classified as 'business auxiliary services', thus impacting the tax liability.

2. The second issue pertains to the binding nature of the AAR's decision on the parties involved. The appellant had sought an advance ruling from the AAR regarding a future business project, which was not directly related to the ongoing dispute with the Revenue. The appellant argues that the AAR's decision should not bind the parties for the period in question, as the dispute had already been raised by the Revenue. The Tribunal concurs with this argument, stating that its decisions should prevail for the period not covered by the AAR judgment. Consequently, the Tribunal dispenses with the pre-deposit condition and allows the stay petition, indicating a preference for its own decisions over the AAR's ruling in the current context.

In conclusion, the judgment clarifies the classification of services for tax purposes and emphasizes the applicability of Tribunal decisions over AAR rulings in specific scenarios, providing valuable insights into the legal treatment of service activities and the hierarchy of judicial decisions in tax matters.