2018 (5) TMI 831 - AT - Service Tax

Demand of service tax - Dusting (cleaning) services - Road Berms - Held that - dusting (cleaning) is not falling under the category of management, maintenance and repair service as per the ratio laid down in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur vs. ANS Constructions Ltd. 2009 (6) TMI 465 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI - demand set aside. Services regarding road beam are exempted as per Section 97 of the Finance Act, 1994 which was inserted on 28.5.2012 with retrospective effect. So, these services are not covered for the purpose of service tax - demand set aside. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appellant providing dusting (cleaning) and road berms services to a thermal power station.
2. Dispute regarding service tax on the above services for the period 2005-2010.
3. Appellant already paying service tax on garden maintenance.
4. Interpretation of whether dusting (cleaning) falls under management, maintenance, and repair service.
5. Exemption of road berms services under Section 97 of the Finance Act, 1994.

The judgment pertains to an appeal against an Order-in-Appeal dated 31.10.2013, concerning services provided by the appellant to a thermal power station. The appellant offered dusting (cleaning) and road berms services, with the dispute revolving around the service tax liability for the period 2005-2010. It is noted that the appellant is already paying service tax on garden maintenance, which is not contested in the appeal. The Tribunal heard arguments from both parties and reviewed the available evidence. Regarding the dusting (cleaning) service, the Tribunal referenced a precedent to establish that it does not fall under the category of management, maintenance, and repair service. Additionally, the Tribunal highlighted the exemption of road berms services under Section 97 of the Finance Act, 1994, inserted with retrospective effect on 28.5.2012, thereby excluding these services from service tax liability. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that service tax is not chargeable on the mentioned services and set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal filed by the appellant. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in open court by the Tribunal.

This analysis provides a detailed overview of the issues involved in the legal judgment, focusing on the services provided by the appellant, the interpretation of relevant legal provisions, and the Tribunal's decision regarding the service tax liability on the disputed services.