TMI Blog2011 (5) TMI 616X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... within eight weeks from the order and report compliance on 13/05/2011 - 690 of 2010 - ST/278/2011 - Dated:- 4-5-2011 - Ashok Jindal, Mathew John, JJ. For Appellant : Shri Rajesh Chhibber, Adv. For Respondent : Shri Sonal Bajaj, SDR Per: Mathew John: The Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of sugar mills machinery, heavy gears and steel casting, paper mill machinery, Diesel Engines etc. They also do de-shelling and re-shelling of old and worn out sugar mill rollers which are sent to them by various sugar mills when such rollers become old and worn out and requires reconditioning before further use. The moot point in this appeal is whether such de-shelling and re-shelling is liable to service tax under the head "Mai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reement or (ii) a manufacture or any person authorized by him, in relation to - a) maintenance or repair including re-conditioning or restoration, or servicing of any goods or equipment excluding motor vehicle; or b) maintenance or management of immovable property; 5. In view of the fact that re-conditioning is specifically included from 16-06-2005 they argue that for the previous period their activity can not be subjected to tax. 6. They 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 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 007. This shows that the department itself was not sure of the scope of the entry. So allegation of suppression with intention to evade duty is not sustainable. 10. The Ld DR argues that the taxable entry as reproduced in para 4 above has two parts, one relating to service provided by any person under a contract or an agreement and another relating to service provided by a manufacturer or any person authorized by him. In the former part there is a requirement regarding a contract or agreement. In the latter part there is no requirement regarding contract or agreement. He argues that the clarification given by CBEC vide letter dated 27-07-2005 is in respect of the former and not in respect of repair done by a manufacturer. It is his submis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
