2025 (6) TMI 1588 - AT - Service Tax

Crematorium maintenance services taxable under Section 65(105)(zzg) but entitled to cum-duty benefits and material cost abatement

Power Heat Associates Versus Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Mangalore

The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal concerning service tax liability on crematorium maintenance services. While confirming the service falls under ... Recovery of service tax - ‘Management, maintenance or repair’ service as per Section 65 (105)(zzg) of the Finance Act, 1994 - applicability of abatement as per N/N. 12/2003-ST dated 20.06.2003 - HELD THAT:- It is an admitted fact that the contract was made for maintenance of crematorium and adjudication authority rightly classified the service as falling under category of 'Management, maintenance or repair service. However there is no reason or justification to deny the benefit of cum tax and by allowing the same, appellant is eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 6/2005-ST dated 01.03.2005 for the period September 2005 to March 2006. Hence, the appeal is partially allowed directing the lower authority to extend the benefit of cum-duty and the benefit of Notification No. 6/2005-ST dated 01.03.2005 for the period September 2005 to March 2006. The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in this appeal are:1. Whether the service provided by the appellant under the agreement with the Mysore City Corporation for maintenance of crematorium falls within the scope of 'Management, maintenance or repair' service as defined under Section 65(105)(zzg) of the Finance Act, 1994, thereby attracting service tax liability.2. Whether the appellant is entitled to the benefit of cum-duty (cumulative duty) basis for calculating taxable turnover and service tax payable, particularly in light of Notification No. 12/2003-ST dated 20.06.2003.3. Whether the appellant qualifies for exemption under Notification No. 6/2005-ST dated 01.03.2005, which exempts service tax liability if the turnover of the previous year is below Rs. 4 lakhs.4. The correctness of the demand for service tax, interest, and penalties imposed by the adjudicating authorities and the Commissioner (Appeals).Issue 1: Classification of Service as 'Management, maintenance or repair' serviceThe relevant legal framework is Section 65(105)(zzg) of the Finance Act, 1994, which defines 'Management, maintenance or repair' service as a taxable service category. The Department's contention was that the appellant's activity of maintaining the crematorium falls within this category and is therefore liable to service tax.The Adjudication Authority and subsequent appellate authorities upheld this classification. The appellant did not dispute this classification before the Tribunal, and it was accepted as an admitted fact. The Tribunal noted that the contract was indeed for maintenance of the crematorium and that the classification was appropriate.The Court's reasoning was based on the nature of the service rendered, which involved upkeep and maintenance activities, squarely fitting within the statutory definition. No competing arguments were raised to challenge this classification.Conclusion: The service rendered by the appellant is correctly classified as 'Management, maintenance or repair' service and is liable to service tax under the Finance Act.Issue 2: Entitlement to Cum-Duty Benefit and Application of Notification No. 12/2003-STNotification No. 12/2003-ST dated 20.06.2003 provides for abatement in the taxable value of certain services by excluding the value of materials used in the course of providing the service. The appellant contended that the taxable turnover should be computed on a cum-duty basis, allowing deduction for materials consumed, thereby reducing the taxable value and service tax liability.The Adjudication Authority, upon remand from the Commissioner (Appeals), considered the abatement and allowed deduction for material consumed, reducing the demand accordingly. The appellant argued that the benefit of cum-duty should also be allowed, which was not initially given.The Tribunal analyzed the relevant notification and the facts regarding turnover and material consumption. It observed that the adjudicating authorities correctly applied the abatement for materials as per Notification No. 12/2003-ST but had not extended the cum-duty benefit in full.The Tribunal held that there was no justification for denying the cum-duty benefit, and directed the lower authorities to allow the appellant the benefit of cum-duty for the relevant period.The appellant's calculations demonstrated that applying the cum-duty basis and abatement significantly reduced the taxable turnover and service tax payable, resulting in excess tax paid and eligibility for refund.Conclusion: The appellant is entitled to the benefit of cum-duty and abatement under Notification No. 12/2003-ST, reducing the taxable turnover and service tax liability.Issue 3: Applicability of Exemption under Notification No. 6/2005-STNotification No. 6/2005-ST dated 01.03.2005 exempts service tax liability on the first Rs. 4 lakhs of turnover if the previous year's turnover is below Rs. 4 lakhs. The appellant claimed exemption for the period September 2005 to March 2006 based on this notification.The appellant's turnover for the period September 2005 to March 2006, after applying cum-duty basis and abatement, was below Rs. 4 lakhs, making them eligible for exemption under the notification.For the subsequent year 2006-07, the appellant admitted that the previous year's turnover exceeded Rs. 4 lakhs, disqualifying them from the exemption for that year.The Tribunal agreed with this position and directed that the benefit of Notification No. 6/2005-ST be extended only for the period September 2005 to March 2006.Conclusion: The appellant is entitled to exemption under Notification No. 6/2005-ST for the period September 2005 to March 2006 but not for the financial year 2006-07.Issue 4: Legitimacy of Demand, Interest and PenaltiesThe Adjudication Authority had initially confirmed the demand of service tax along with interest and penalties. On remand, the demand was reduced after considering abatement, and penalties were refrained from being imposed.The appellant challenged the demand on the basis of incorrect calculation of turnover and non-application of cum-duty benefits, resulting in excess tax paid.The Tribunal found that while the service tax demand was justified on the admitted classification of service, the calculation of turnover and tax payable needed correction by allowing cum-duty benefits and exemption notifications.Accordingly, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, directing the lower authorities to adjust the tax liability and refund excess tax paid with applicable interest, but did not reinstate penalties.Conclusion: Demand for service tax is valid but must be recalculated after allowing cum-duty and exemption benefits. Penalties are not warranted.Significant HoldingsThe Tribunal held: 'It is an admitted fact that the contract was made for maintenance of crematorium and adjudication authority rightly classified the service as falling under category of 'Management, maintenance or repair service.' However, there is no reason or justification to deny the benefit of cum duty and by allowing the same, appellant is eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 6/2005-ST dated 01.03.2005 for the period September 2005 to March 2006.'This establishes the principle that classification of service under a taxable category does not preclude entitlement to statutory abatements and exemptions, which must be duly considered to arrive at the correct tax liability.The Tribunal's final determination was to partially allow the appeal, directing the lower authorities to extend the benefit of cum-duty and Notification No. 6/2005-ST for the relevant period, and to refund the excess tax paid with interest, while upholding the service tax liability for the period beyond exemption eligibility.