9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 420X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es of the contract show that the same was for routine break down repairs and maintenance etc. Revenue by entertaining a view that the said activities undertaken by the appellant amounted to providing of service under the category of maintenance and repair services, which were liable to tax, initiated proceedings were against the appellant by way of issuance of Show Cause Notices. The said Show Cause Notices stand culminated into impugned orders confirming the demand of duties and imposing penalties upon the appellant. Hence the present appeal. 3. Ld. Advocate Shri B.L. Narasimhan appearing for the appellants have fairly agreed that the issue on merits stands settled against the appellants in the cases of other appellants similarly situate. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view of the above decision, the demand beyond the period of limitation is required to be set aside along with setting aside of penalty and the matter is required to be remanded for re-quantification of service tax falling within the limitation period and by treating the entire compensation as cum duty amount. 6. Countering the arguments, ld. DR submits that the period of dispute in all the cases is from 1.7.2003 to 12.1.2005 and the appellants having entered into a maintenance contract with M/s KTPS should have been aware of the fact that such maintenance activities are covered by the maintenance or repair services in terms of the provisions of Section 65 (64) of the Finance Act, 1994 and should have discharged service tax liability. No in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d for job done and hence can be considered as a rate contract, there could be a legitimate understanding of the appellant that they are not liable to discharge service tax liability under the maintenance or repair services. In view of this, in our considered view, the demand which is confirmed by the adjudicating authority by upholding invocations of larger period is not on sound reasoning and is liable to be set aside and we do so." We have no reasons to take a different view as the one taken by the Tribunal in the above referred decision. We accordingly hold that the demands raised beyond normal period of limitation are barred by limitation. The demand in the case of M/s N.K. Traders is fully time-barred whereas the demands in the other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
