2011 (4) TMI 462 - AT - Service Tax

CESTAT rules in favor of appellant, sets aside service tax demand for repair services

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the service tax demand of Rs.3,44,923/- for maintenance and ... Tax liability - Providing services of repair of transformers under rate contract - Whether maintenance and repair under rate contract is not liable to service tax prior to 16.6.2005.-As per the Tribunal s decision in the case of CCE, Jaipur-I vs. Bhiwadi Cylinders Pvt.Ltd [2008 -TMI - 4573 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] held that repair activities under a rate contract would not be covered by the definition of maintenance and repair service for the period prior to 16.6.2005, which required said activity to be carried under a maintenance contract - decided in favour of assessee. Issues:Service tax demand confirmation for maintenance and repair services provided by the appellant from 1.7.2003 to 31.12.2004.Analysis:The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, addressed the issue of service tax demand amounting to Rs.3,44,923/- confirmed against the appellant for providing maintenance and repair services to clients from 1.7.2003 to 31.12.2004. The appellant had undertaken repair services under a rate contract for transformers installed at the customer's premises, M/s. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. The appellant's advocate referenced precedent decisions and a Board circular to argue that such repair contracts were not taxable as maintenance and repair services before 16.6.2005. The Tribunal considered decisions like CCE, Jaipur-I vs. Bhiwadi Cylinders Pvt. Ltd., CCE, Jaipur-I vs. Maheshwari Transformers Pvt. Ltd., and CCE, Jaipur-II vs. Dusad Transformer & Switchgears (P) Ltd. to support the appellant's position.The Departmental Representative (DR) contended that the contracts were indeed for maintenance and repair of transformers, making them liable to service tax. The DR cited the Tribunal's decision in TECHAIDS vs. CCE, Delhi-I, which classified activities involving receiving old and used cylinders and refurbishing them as maintenance and repair services. However, the Tribunal noted that the issue had been settled by previous decisions and the Board's circular, which stated that repair activities under a rate contract before 16.6.2005 were not covered under maintenance and repair services. The Tribunal highlighted that the DR's referenced decision was not directly applicable to the current case due to differences in activities and timeframes.Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the repair activities undertaken by the appellant under a rate contract did not fall under the definition of maintenance and repair services before 16.6.2005. Given the precedents and the binding nature of the Board's circular, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal and granting consequential relief to the appellant.