9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 461X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wells. No basis whatsoever has been assigned. He completely lost sight that the workover job has been desired by ONGC to complete the development and exploratory wells by deploying the mobile workover units at locations identified by ONGC to exploit natural hydrocarbons. On perusal of the above scope of work, we are not inclined to accept the conclusion reached by the learned Commissioner to hold that the service rendered by the assessee is for repair or maintenance. We agree with the submissions made by the learned Advocate that no repair or maintenance service has been rendered by the assessee and whatever repair service has been undertaken is clearly incidental to the main service of hiring of workover rigs. The said service could not be taxed under the category of Maintenance, Management and Repair service'. Extended Period of Limitation - HELD THAT:- The learned Commissioner has not assigned any positive evidence to show that Service Tax has been deliberately not paid by the assessee. The only finding that has been made by the learned Commissioner is that the assessee has not intimated the fact of rendering the said service, which in view of the department is tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vided to them and a reasoned order be passed in a time bound manner afresh by providing adequate opportunity of being heard. The Department preferred an appeal before the Hon ble Gauhati High Court against the rejection of Department s appeal by the Tribunal pertaining to setting aside of the penalty amount. The High Court vide Order dated 04.06.2010 rejected the appeal filed by the Department upholding the order of the Tribunal with the finding that the very constitution of Review Committee was a nullity and hence, the appeal filed by the Department against the Commissioner s Order was not proper. Against the said High Court s order, the Department has further preferred an appeal before the Apex Court which is pending as on date. However, there is no stay of the operation of High Court s order as on date. 3. Shri R. G. Sheth, learned Advocate appeared for the assessee and Shri S.S.Chattopadhyay, learned Authorized Representative appeared for the Revenue. 4. The learned Advocate for the assessee has made detailed submissions challenging the impugned order dated 25.03.2009 passed ex parte, both on merits as well as on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the impugned order has been passed in haste by which the assessee has been saddled with a huge tax demand, which is bad in law. 4.3 The learned Advocate has also referred to the portion of the subject contract under which services have been rendered by the assessee to ONGC to buttress his argument that the service is not for repair or maintenance but for charter hire of workover rigs and that whatever repair activity has been done is for self to enable the assessee to execute the charter hire contract. He also referred to the communications exchanged between the Department and the service recipient, ONGC, on perusal of which it appears that ONGC has stated that there is no repair related activity undertaken by the assessee which fact has completely been ignored by the learned Commissioner in the impugned order. 5. The learned Authorized Representative for the Revenue reiterated the findings made by the learned Commissioner and supported the impugned order. He submitted that the demand has been rightly made under the category of Maintenance, Management and Repair service and that since the appeal filed by the Department before the Apex Court is pending with regard to the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iedly concluded that the work is nothing but maintenance and repair of workover oil wells. No basis whatsoever has been assigned. He completely lost sight that the workover job has been desired by ONGC to complete the development and exploratory wells by deploying the mobile workover units at locations identified by ONGC to exploit natural hydrocarbons. On perusal of the above scope of work, we are not inclined to accept the conclusion reached by the learned Commissioner to hold that the service rendered by the assessee is for repair or maintenance. We have also perused the letter dated 25.01.2007 written by ONGC, which is appearing at page No. 167 of the appeal book, in response to the query raised by the Department, wherein it has been stated by ONGC that they have charter hired workover rigs from the assessee (appellant herein) for workover operations in various onshore oil fields of Assam Asset during the material period and that the workover rigs were owned by the assessee. It has also been expressly stated therein that ONGC has not hired operation and maintenance service from assessee. 10. We agree with the submissions made by the learned Advocate that no repair or mainten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
