2015 (12) TMI 1496 - AT - Service Tax

Appellate tribunal affirms service tax liability for management services contract with Nashik Municipal Corp.

Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik Versus Sahastronics Controls Pvt. Ltd.

The appellate tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decisions, confirming the service tax liability under the 'Management, Maintenance or Repair ... Demand of service tax - services provided to self - Management, Maintenance or Repair services - Held that:- To maintain ones own equipment, to optimize the usefulness, by maintenance and repair, in the BOOT period, is certainly not liable to Service tax as services rendered to self cannot be taxed. - There is nothing on record to indicate contrary in the appeal filed by the Revenue - In our view the impugned order as well as the order of the adjudicating authority are correct, legal and does not suffer from any infirmity. - Decided against Revenue. Issues involved:Service tax liability under 'Management, Maintenance or Repair services' category.Analysis:1. Issue of Service Tax Liability:- The case revolves around determining the service tax liability under the category of 'Management, Maintenance or Repair services.' The respondent entered into a contract with Nashik Municipal Corporation (NMC) for various activities related to energy-saving devices and their maintenance over a five-year period.2. Judicial Findings:- Both lower authorities concluded that the services provided by the respondent to NMC are taxable under the mentioned category. The first appellate authority emphasized that the contract involved a BOOT (Build Own Operate Transfer) basis, where profit-sharing occurred between the parties based on energy savings.3. Interpretation of Contract Terms:- The appellate authority highlighted that the contract focused on energy saving, and the earnings shared between the parties were tied to the energy saved during the specified period. The responsibility of maintaining and ensuring the proper functioning of the equipment installed was crucial for maximizing energy savings.4. Ownership and Control:- The authority rejected the argument that the respondent's role was limited to management and repairs, emphasizing that the ownership of the equipment remained with the respondent. The authority also addressed the control exercised by NMC over design and drawing aspects.5. Legal Fiction and Taxable Services:- The authority dismissed the notion of services rendered to self being taxable, highlighting that the contract was between two distinct entities. It emphasized that the terms of the contract should not be ignored or considered a legal fiction.6. Judicial Decision:- The appellate tribunal upheld the decisions of the lower authorities, deeming them correct, legal, and free from any infirmity. Consequently, the appeal by the Revenue was rejected, and the Cross Objection filed by the respondent was disposed of.This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the intricate legal considerations and interpretations made by the authorities regarding the service tax liability under the specified category, emphasizing contractual terms, profit-sharing arrangements, ownership, and the nature of services rendered.