2009 (7) TMI 137

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r (Excise) of the Company, appearing for the assessees and Shri J.S. Negi, learned SDR for the Revenue. 2. All the respondents are engaged in manufacture of electrical transformers falling under Chapter Heading 85 of CETA, 1985. Such transformers were being cleared by them on payment of duty to Gujarat Electricity Board (GEB). As per the terms of contract, the appellants were under obligation to repair and maintain the said transformers during the warranty period, free of charge. 3. The job of repairing and maintenance work was entrusted by all the respondents to one M/s. Dankey Electricals Ltd. (DEL) The bill for repairing and maintenance was being raised by DEL on the present respondents. The service tax paid by DEL was being availe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....vice tax involved thereon. The aspect that the impugned transformers for repair/service were directly received from the customer (CEB) by the party and returned back to GEB without routing through the Appellants is not relevant for determining as to who was the actual receiver of the services in this case. The movement of transformer from GEB to the repairer and back to GEB was an arrangement for convenience between the Appellants and M/s. Danke Etectricals and M/s. GEB to avoid unnecessary movement of the transformers. The fact remains that in these cases, the repairer has no direct relation/ agreement with GEB in respect of the said re pairs etc and these repairs were undertaken by the repairer at the instance of the Appellants (who are a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t to GEB. The fact that the same was in respect of the transformers already sold to GEB, would not change the situation inasmuch as the repair and maintenance of the same was a legal obligation of the respondents. As such, I find no reason to take a view different than one taken by the Commissioner (Appeals). 6. Apart from the above, the appellate authority has viewed the problem from angle, when he observed as under "4.5 Assuming, though not admitting, for the sake of argument that the services have been provided by M/s Danke Electricals to M/s. GEB on be half of the appellants, then the service would be appropriately classifiable as "Business Auxiliary Service" covered under clause (iii) [any customer care service provided by a thir....