9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1106X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... maintenance contracts. - The show cause notice in this case was issued on 6.12.2006. The fact that the appellant started paying service tax w.e.f. 16.6.2005 after the definition of maintenance or repair service was amended shows their bona fides. Even if the contracts under which the service was rendered were to be interpreted by some as maintenance contracts, the fact remains that it cannot be said to be unreasonable on the part of the appellant to think that these were not maintenance contracts and the fact that it started paying service tax with effect from 16.6.2005 when the words maintenance contract was substituted by the word contract lends credence to the appellants contention regarding their bonafide belief - Impugned order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n advance". 3. The primary adjudicating authority held that the service rendered was covered under the scope of maintenance and repair service and accordingly confirmed the aforesaid demand along with interest and penalties. 4. The appellant has contended that it has been paying service tax w.e.f. 16.6.2005. Prior to 16.6.2005, it was not liable to pay service tax as the service rendered was only repair service and the contract was actually a repair contract and not a maintenance contract. It (i.e. the appellant) was required to repair various leaks etc whenever they happened and there was no provision in the contract which required them to undertake the maintenance work. The service recipients also certified that the contracts were for r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... certified that the contracts with the appellants were repair contracts and not maintenance contracts. Even the scope described in the contracts of work indicates that the appellant was required to attend to various leakages etc. CESTAT in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Jaipur Vs. Bhiwadi cylinders private limited 2008 (11) STR 37(Tri-Del) has held that "maintenance is in the nature of preventive action. Admittedly, the respondent was only repairing old gas cylinders and for taking such repair they have entered into a rate contract. This contract for repair cannot be treated as a contract for maintenance". Similar view was held in the case of Speedways Tyre Service Vs. CCE, Ludhiana - 2009 (14) STR 339(Tri-Del). Board vide Circul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
