Works contract classification and excess tax adjustment: demand, interest and penalty were set aside for repair and maintenance services.

Service tax liability could not be sustained where the department failed to establish that the activity was works contract service; the record showed repair and maintenance service, so the demand, interest and penalty were set aside, including the reverse charge basis. Adjustment of excess paid service tax in a later period was held permissible because disallowance would result in double payment for the same service; the related demand, interest and penalty were therefore unsustainable. The impugned order was modified and consequential relief followed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the demand of service tax, interest and penalty on the footing that the service was works contract service was sustainable; (ii) Whether adjustment of excess paid service tax in a subsequent period was permissible.

Issue (i): Whether the demand of service tax, interest and penalty on the footing that the service was works contract service was sustainable.

Analysis: The demand could not be sustained where the revenue failed to establish that the service rendered was works contract service throughout the proceedings. The record before the Original Authority showed that the service was repair and maintenance service, and the liability was therefore not correctly fastened under the alleged category, including under reverse charge.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee and the demand of service tax, interest and penalty on this count was set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether adjustment of excess paid service tax in a subsequent period was permissible.

Analysis: The adjustment of excess paid service tax was held to be allowable, since denial of such adjustment would result in twice payment of service tax for the same service. The prior tribunal view relied upon supported the assessee's entitlement to the adjustment.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee and the demand of Rs. 29,631/- with interest and penalty was held unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded on the substantive disputes, the impugned order was modified, and consequential relief followed according to law.

---