9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 508X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sustained. - demand of tax alongwith interest as proposed in the show cause notice are upheld and the imposition of penalty is dropped - Decided partly in favour of Revenue. - Appeal No. ST/190/2007 - ORDER No. A/10983 / 2015 - Dated:- 30-6-2015 - Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) And Mr. P.M. Saleem, Hon ble Member (Technical),JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri Anand Mishra, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Alok Srivastava , Authorised Representative ORDER Per : Mr.P.K. Das, Revenue filed this appeal against the Order of the Commissioner, where the proceedings initiated under the Show Cause Notice dated 28.2.2007 was dropped. 2. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of records, we find that the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of the said decision is reproduced below: 15. In the case on hand, the respondent-assessee is admittedly a manufacturer of transformers and also undertakes to provide repairing service to several firms and had received payments for the repairing services provided. The assessee thus clearly falls within the second limb of the expression maintenance or repair as defined in Section 65(64) of the Act and must be deemed to have rendered the taxable service under Section 65(105)(zzg). The record also discloses and this is not disputed, that the assessee had not filed ST-2 returns disclosing the value of those services provided, for remitting service tax. Ld. Consultant for the assessee states that this omission to file service tax return f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , maintenance or repair carried out under a maintenance contract or agreement was alone covered under service tax. No authority has placed before us to contend that the clarification by TRU dated 27-7-2005 is binding. The TRU clarification, as set out in paragraph 16.4 thereof proceeds on only a partial analysis of Section 65(64) of the Act, inasmuch as it talks only of clause (i) and not clause (ii) of Section 65(64), to which we have already alluded (supra) and have recorded our analysis thereon. 5. The Learned Advocate on behalf of the Respondent submits that the said decision would not apply in the present case. In that case, the respondent/assessee was a manufacturer. We are unable to accept the contention of the Learned Advocate fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
