2018 (8) TMI 1459 - AT - Service Tax

Demand of differential service tax - demand based upon the audit conducted at APSPDCL Cuddapah - material used for repairing of transformers - case of appellant is that VAT is paid in material component - Time Limitation - Held that - In the appeal memoranda the appellant has not annexed any evidences to show that there is vat payment on the materials used for repairing of transformers of APSPDCL - further, on limitation show cause notice issued by reviewing authority is not time barred as it as per Section 84. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:

1. Time-barred show cause notice.
2. Service tax liability on repair services.
3. Applicability of previous tribunal judgment.
4. Lack of evidence regarding VAT payment on materials.
5. Rejection of the appeal.

Analysis:

1. The appeal was against Order-in-Revision No. 08/2008 (S.Tax) dated 29.10.2008. The appellant claimed the show cause notice issued by the Commissioner was time-barred as it was dated 25.03.2007, and the period in question was July 2004 to March 2006.

2. The appellant provided services to APSPDC Limited for repairing transformers. The issue arose when it was discovered that the service tax amount was not paid to the Government of India. The Adjudicating Authority allowed deduction of certain amounts but confirmed a tax liability of &8377; 13,620/- along with interest and penalties. The Commissioner later issued a fresh show cause notice for a higher amount, which was confirmed after due process.

3. The appellant cited a previous tribunal judgment in the case of N. Srinivasula Reddy, claiming it should apply in their case as well. However, the Tribunal found that the issue in the current case was different as it involved repairing transformers, not servicing them as in the previous judgment. Therefore, the previous judgment was deemed inapplicable.

4. The appellant failed to provide evidence of VAT payment on materials used for repairing transformers. This lack of evidence weakened their argument against the service tax liability.

5. After careful consideration of submissions and records, the Tribunal upheld the Order-in-Review, rejecting the appellant's appeal. The Tribunal found no merit in the appellant's arguments, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

This detailed analysis covers the various issues raised in the judgment, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal reasoning and decision-making process involved.