1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>CESTAT rules reconditioning not repair-cum-maintenance. Appellant's pre-deposit waived, stay granted.</h1> The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi ruled in favor of the appellant, finding that reconditioning should not be treated as repair-cum-maintenance for ... Service tax liability for reconditioning services - classification as repair-cum-maintenance - prima facie case - pre-deposit requirement for stayService tax liability for reconditioning services - classification as repair-cum-maintenance - prima facie case - pre-deposit requirement for stay - Whether further pre-deposit should be directed and stay of demand granted where reconditioning was treated as repair-cum-maintenance only from 2005 but the demand relates to an earlier period. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal examined the statutory definition of the service for the relevant period and found that reconditioning was not classified as repair-cum-maintenance during that earlier period. On the material before it, the appellant established a strong prima facie case on merits challenging the classification relied upon by the revenue. In view of the prima facie strength of the appellant's case and the specific finding that the impugned classification did not apply for the period in question, the Tribunal exercised its discretion to waive the requirement of further pre-deposit and to grant stay of recovery of the demand.Requirement of further pre-deposit waived and stay application allowed.Final Conclusion: The Tribunal found a strong prima facie case that reconditioning was not taxable as repair-cum-maintenance for the earlier period (reclassification occurring only from 2005), and accordingly waived further pre-deposit and granted stay of the demand. The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi heard both sides and perused the record. The impugned order imposed service tax by treating reconditioning as repair-cum-maintenance. The appellant argued that reconditioning was included only from 2005, not for the earlier period. The appellant had already deposited Rs. 60,000 out of the demand of about Rs. 2.30 lakhs. The definition of service during the relevant period did not treat reconditioning as repair cum maintenance. The appellant had a strong prima facie case on merits. Further pre-deposit requirement was waived, and the stay application was allowed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
