2018 (10) TMI 652

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sh Chhibber (Advocate) for the Appellant (s) Shri Mohd. Altaf (Asstt. Commr.) (A.R.) for the Revenue ORDER Per Mrs. Archana Wadhwa: The present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order in appeal dated 24.02.2010 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals), Customs & Central Excise, Meerut. 2. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods classifiable under C....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e show cause notice is Rs. 27,67,875/-. The show cause notice proposed to demand the above service tax under proviso to section 73 along with interest under section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 in addition to penalty under section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Rules 4,5,6 and 7 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. The adjudicating authority vide the impugned order in original confirmed the above....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ey rely on the clarification issued by Ministry vide letter F.No.B1/6/2005-TRU dated 27-07-2005. The relevant para is reproduced below: "Prior to 16.6.2005, maintenance or repair carried out under a maintenance contract or agreement was covered under service tax. Repair or servicing carried out under a contract other than a maintenance contract or agreement was not covered within the purview of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ls of Sugar Mills Rollers, shall be liable to service tax only with effect from 16.06.2005. The Tribunal also dealt with the issue of limitation and held that inasmuch as the appellant was reflecting everything in their returns filed with the Revenue, no malafide can be attributed to them. As the issue involved in the case of Jagat Machinery decision's of the Tribunal is identical to the issue inv....