2011 (5) TMI 629

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....703 to March, 2005 under the category of maintenance and repairs service. Both the lower authorities, on completion of adjudicating and appellate proceedings, have come to the conclusion that all the appellants herein are liable to pay the service tax under the head 'Maintenance or Repairs service' and are liable to pay the interest as well as the consequent penalties arising out of non-discharge of service tax liabilities, for which lower authorities relied upon the contract/agreement of the appellants with Kota Thermal Power Station (KTPS) regarding maintenance or repair service in their plant. 4. Since all these appeals raise a common issue, they are being disposed off by a common order. 5. Ld. advocate appearing on behalf of the a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tax liability. The said definition now indicates that the entire demand is not tenable and the agreement under which repairs are undertaken is also not liable to be taxed. 6. Ld. Departmental Representative on the other hand referring to the very same contract as has been relied upon by the counsel, would submit that the agreement/contract entered with KTPS indicates about the maintenance of ash handling plant. He would submit that the contract talks about the capital/routine and breakdown maintenance, i.e., work allotted to the appellant is of routine nature though they are being paid for the work completed as per schedule. 7. On careful consideration of submissions made by both the sides, we find that the issue involved in this case....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ved by the said M/s Mitul Engineering Services, i.e., Rs.35.5 lakh during the relevant period and existence of said agreements and the work undertaken by them at KTPS. We are of the considered view that appellant could have entertained a bonafide belief, that the contract entered by them is a rate contract and the payment being based on the work done by them during the existence of agreement, we find there is no malafide intention in the appellant in not discharging service tax liability from 01.07.03. We find that the details of Show Cause Notices as issued to the appellants:  S.No. Name of Appellant SCN Date 1. M/s Mitul Engineering (ST/308/2007) 23.12.05 2. M/s Navdeep Engineering (ST/309/2007) 22.12.05 ....