9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 445X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant got the contract for repairing the transformers is only a "work order" and contract for repair and it is not a "maintenance contract". - Service Tax was not leviable during the relevant period - Decided in favor of assessee. - Appeal No. ST/301/12 - Final Order No. A/85529/2016-WZB/STB - Dated:- 30-12-2015 - M V Ravindran, Member (J) And C J Mathew, Member (T) For the Appellant : Ms Aparna H, Adv For the Respondent : Shri D Nagvenkar, Addl. Commr (AR) ORDER Per M V Ravindran This appeal is directed against order-in-original No. 49/09/V/2012/COMMR/KS/ST dated 9.2.2012. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are appellant herein is manufacturer of transformers and discharges appropriate Centr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. She would submit that there was no maintenance contract entered by the appellant with the State Electricity Boards. She would submit that the definition of maintenance or repair services underwent a change from 16.06.2005 wherein the words maintenance contract was removed and only a contract was mentioned and from that date tax liability may arise on the appellant and they have discharged the said liability; but demands raised in the show-cause notice and confirmed by the adjudicating authority has included various materials cost which was used while undertaking the repairs during the period 16.06.2005 to 31.03.2006 and it requires re-quantification. It is her submission that without prejudice to the submission already made, the en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en propagated by Revenue earlier but since we are looking at definition in the Finance Act, 1994 it may be considered. It is his submission that post 15.06.2005, there is no dispute as to the taxability of the services. He would submit that the prayer of the assessee that needs requantification, he is leaving to the Bench, as the show-cause notice demands duty on the materials which may have been used for undertaking the repairs of the said transformers. On limitation it is submitted that appellant has no case as the department was not kept informed about the activity of repairs undertaken by them. 5. We have considered the submissions made at length by both sides and perused the records. 6. The issue herein is regarding taxability of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tenance contract or an agreement; or (ii) a manufacturer or any person authorized by him, in relation to maintenance or repair or servicing of any goods or equipment, excluding motor vehicle. 6.3 It can be seen from the above reproduced definition, the requirement of statute prior to 15.06.2005 for taxability of the services rendered is very clear i.e. that the maintenance of repairs has to be provided by any person under maintenance contract or agreement. Undisputedly in the case in hand for the entire period, there was no maintenance contact entered by the appellant with the State Electricity Board for repairs of their transformers. The tender process through which the appellant got the contract for repairing the transformers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant on the activity of the repairs undertaken on transformers received by them from various State Electricity Boards. 6.5 As regards the activity of repairs post 15.6.2005, we find that the activity as per the definition (reproduced herein above) will cover the services rendered and the appellant herein is liable to discharge the service tax liability. The submission of the learned Counsel that they had discharged the service tax liability but the tax liability in the show-cause notice needs re-quantification, as the demand is also on the materials consumed for such repairing activity. Casual perusal of the invoices produced before us indicates that the appellant has charged separately for the material consumed and for the services ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
