2007 (3) TMI 774

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....repair, over-haul and maintenance of these HSTs. 2. The end user of the above HSTs is the Indian Air Force as these are deployed in military airports for the use of air force aircrafts. 3. "Maintenance and repairs services" are liable to service tax. In the present appeals, the appellant contests this levy in regard to the maintenance of HSTs. The ground taken is that revenue authorities have clarified that no Service Tax Registration is required to be taken by a sub-contractor and as main contractors are liable to pay the tax. The contention is that the main contractor in this case is HAL and appellant is a sub-contractor in terms of the clarification. 4. The clarifications referred to are to be found in Circular No. B.43/5/97-TRU....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eed not take a registration under Service Tax. In all such cases. Service Tax is to be paid by main service provider. 5. Reliance is also placed on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of BBR (India) Limited v. CCE, Bangalore -III as reported in 2006 (4) STR 269 (Tri. Bang.). 6. The learned SDR would point out that the manufacture, maintenance etc. in the present case are in terms of a principal to principal basis agreement between HAL and the appellant manufacturer and Indian Air Force has no concern with it. The learned SDR would point out that the agreement makes it clear that HAL is the purchaser of appellant's supplies. The Indian Air Force is only the user. Further, the entire design development etc. of the product in q....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... regards, the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of BBR (India) Limited, the learned SDR would point out that in that case, the SWISS Company BBR was a sub-contractor to IRCON while the service agreement was between IRCON and Indian Railways. The contention of the learned SDR is that the facts of that case are not applicable to the present case at all. He would also point out that the Question and Answer publication cannot be taken as any specific clarification in as much as they were issued only to explain commonly raised procedural issues and these do not, and cannot, expand or abridge the scope of the levy. He also would emphasise that the Questions and Answers publication is subject to the disclaimer that they have no application to s....