9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (5) TMI 616X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s appeal is whether such de-shelling and re-shelling is liable to service tax under the head "Maintenance or Repair" during the period July 03 to Nov 05. 2. The activity of the re-shelling involves breading of the outer shell of the shaft and re-melting of the same. Invariably, some material is to be added by us as the old and used shell is not-sufficient to cast fresh shell. Said re-casted shell is then put on the shaft again and again by same process for number of times. Since the shell is re-melted it is argued that the activity cannot be considered as repair in true sense. It is further argued that the department initially wanted to levy duty on suph activity on the ground that the same amounted to manufacture and this fact would be su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2005 they argue that for the previous period their activity can not be subjected to tax. 6. They rely on the clarification issued by Ministry vide letter F. No. B1/6/2005-TRU dated 27-07-2005. The relevant para is reproduced below: "Prior to 16.6.2005, maintenance or repair carried out under a maintenance contract or agreement was covered under service tax. Repair or servicing carried out under a contract other than a maintenance contract or agreement was not covered within the purview of service tax. Maintenance or repair including reconditioning or restoration or servicing of any goods or equipment, except motor vehicle (which is taxable under the category of authorized service station), undertaken as part of any cont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... person under a contract or an agreement and another relating to service provided by a manufacturer or any person authorized by him. In the former part there is a requirement regarding a contract or agreement. In the latter part there is no requirement regarding contract or agreement. He argues that the clarification given by CBEC vide letter dated 27-07-2005 is in respect of the former and not in respect of repair done by a manufacturer. It is his submission that the case laws quoted have not examined this aspect and proceeded on the presumption that both the categories of persons are on identical footing. 11. Considered arguments on either side. 12. It is very clear that the taxable entry has two distinct parts as argued by the Ld. DR. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
