9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 259X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct was taxable u/s 65 (64) – Held that:- The issue was contentious as the contentions of both the parties were worth considering in detail - Assesse contended that even the 45% consideration on which he had paid service tax was an activity for their own benefit and there was no need for service tax to be paid - Revenue contended that on the same portion they had collected service tax from the service recipient – complete waiver of pre-deposit allowed to the assesse – Decided in favor of assesse. - ST/96/2011, ST/265/2012 and ST/266/2012 - - - Dated:- 28-6-2013 - Shri. P.K. Das and Shri. Mathew John, JJ. For the Appellant: Ms. Kanupriya Bhargava, Adv. For the Respondent: Shri Parmod Kumar, JC (AR) and Shri K.S. V.V. Prasad, JC (AR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y. The applicant has been paying service tax on 45% of the consideration received under the contract from the owners considering it as consideration towards maintenance of the plant, but was not paying service tax on balance 55% of the consideration received considering it towards operation of the power plant and on the basis of their understanding that such operation was not taxable under the Finance Act, 1994. However, according to the Revenue the contract was for Management maintenance and operation of the power plant and the all the activities covered under the contract was taxable under the entry Management, Maintenance and Repair services as defined under Section 65 (64) of the Finance Act, 1994 and liable to Service tax. Hence, show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appeals may also be admitted without any pre-deposit. 7. Opposing the prayer, the Ld. AR submits that Section 65 (64) of the Finance Act, 1994, was amended with effect from 16.6.2005 to include management of properties whether immovable or not. He submits that the initial stay order in Appeal No. S/175/2007 was for a period prior to such amendment and thus stay order was followed in subsequent orders like Stay order No. 576/2010 dt 5/11/10 in appeal No. ST/05/10 without discussing the amendment made in the said entry though it related to a period after the amendment. The Ld. AR submits that the amendment should be considered at least while passing the orders in this case. According to him, the activities done by the appellants is covere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
