9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 1426X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The appellants had no maintenance contract with their customers. Clause (ii) was applicable only to a manufacturer of the goods or persons authorized by him. The appellants were not the manufacturer of the goods or a person authorized by such manufacturer. So the activity was not covered by the definition at Section 65(64) at the relevant time. So the demand is not maintainable. Consequently int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for value of such services received during the said period. The adjudicating authority confirmed demand only for the value of service rendered from 1-7-2003 when the activity was brought under tax net. Such liability was calculated as Rs. 13,804/-. Interest was demanded and penalties under Sections 76 and 75A were also imposed. On appeal the Commissioner (Appeal) reduced the penalty under Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Appellants is that it can be seen from clause (i) that only activity done under a maintenance contract or agreement was taxable during the relevant period. The appellant had not entered into any agreement for maintenance of the motors in question. Repairing activity has been made taxable under clause (ii) and this clause was applicable only to a manufacturer of the equipment or a person au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llants were not the manufacturer of the goods or a person authorized by such manufacturer. So the activity was not covered by the definition at Section 65(64) at the relevant time. So the demand is not maintainable. Consequently interest and penalties also does not arise. 7. Therefore the impugned orders of the lower authorities are set aside and the appeal is allowed. (Pronounced on 16-5-2012 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
