TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (11) TMI 461
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... confirmed under the category of 'Maintenance and Repair service' for the period July 2003 to March 2006 alongwith applicable interest. The learned Commissioner has refrained from passing any order with regard to the proposal made in the Show Cause Notice dated 29.10.2007 for imposition of penalty on the ground that appeal filed by the Department before the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court was pending to the extent of the order whereby penalty was dropped in the previous adjudication Order dated 22.02.2008 passed by the then learned Commissioner. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Show Cause Notice dated 29.10.2007 (SCN) was issued to the assessee, M/s.Dewanchand Ramasaran Industries Pvt Ltd. which was previously adjudicated vide ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i S.S.Chattopadhyay, learned Authorized Representative appeared for the Revenue. 4. The learned Advocate for the assessee has made detailed submissions challenging the impugned order dated 25.03.2009 passed ex parte, both on merits as well as on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice for want of effective hearing inasmuch as the learned Commissioner has failed to provide the contents of report dated 23.02.2008. He inter alia submitted that the portion of the earlier adjudication order dated 22.02.2008 whereby the entire penalty was dropped by invocation of Section 80 of the Act has attained finality since the Department's appeal has been dismissed both by the Tribunal and the Hon'ble High Court. For the aforesaid reason, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-Mum)], CST vs. Furgo Geonics Pvt Ltd. [2014 (33) STR 170 (Tri- Mum)], CST vs. Crisil Ltd [2018 (8) GSTL 16 (Bom)], etc.. 4.2 He also disputed the impugned order by submitting that the learned Commissioner has not complied with the remand instructions by not providing the documents and by not affording adequate opportunity to represent the matter in person for want of documents which is also in violation of principles of natural justice and that the impugned order has been passed in haste by which the assessee has been saddled with a huge tax demand, which is bad in law. 4.3 The learned Advocate has also referred to the portion of the subject contract under which services have been rendered by the assessee to ONGC to buttress his argument....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see is classifiable under the category of Maintenance, Management or Repair service. 8. We have perused the subject contract which is appearing on page Nos. 30 to 99 of the appeal paper book. The contract is primarily for "Charter hire of workover rigs". The scope of work has been stated in Annexure - III appearing on page No. 85 of the appeal book, which inter alia states that, "contractor shall be required to start work over, and if required, complete the development / exploratory wells for ONGC by deploying its mobile work over unit at such locations within the operating area as may be identified by ONGC, and to such depth as are designated by ONGC to exploit natural hydrocarbon in the form of oil & gas". Thereafter, in subsequent parag....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Commissioner to hold that the service rendered by the assessee is for repair or maintenance. We have also perused the letter dated 25.01.2007 written by ONGC, which is appearing at page No. 167 of the appeal book, in response to the query raised by the Department, wherein it has been stated by ONGC that they have charter hired workover rigs from the assessee (appellant herein) for workover operations in various onshore oil fields of Assam Asset during the material period and that the workover rigs were owned by the assessee. It has also been expressly stated therein that ONGC has not hired operation and maintenance service from assessee. 10. We agree with the submissions made by the learned Advocate that no repair or maintenance service ha....