TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 420X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecision hold that the appellants were liable to pay service tax on the services provided under the said contract. - 360 of 2007, 377 of 2007, 409 of 2007, 410 of 2007 - ST/344-347/11 - Dated:- 5-8-2011 - Archana Wadhwa, Mathew John, JJ. For Appellant: Shri B L Narasimhan, Adv. For Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar, SDR Per: Archana Wadhwa: All the appeals are being disposed of by a common order as the issue involved is identical. 2. After hearing both sides duly represented by Shri B.L. Narasimhan, ld. Advocate for Appellant and Shri Sunil Kumar, ld. SDR for Revenue, we find that the appellant entered into a contract with M/s Kota Thermal Power Station for maintenance and repair of the plant. The clauses of the contract show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the appellants. By drawing our attention to the period involved and the dates of Show Cause Notices in each and every appeal, he submits that the extended period stands invoked by the Revenue and only a part of the demand would be within the limitation period. The demand in the case of M/s N.K. Traders is totally barred by limitation. He also submits that Tribunal in the above referred judgement of M/s Mittul Engg. Services has also waived penalty by invoking the provisions of Section 80 of the Finance Act. The duty which falls within the limitation period has been extended. The benefit of cum-duty price and the lower authorities have been directed to re-quantify the same accordingly. 5. As such, he submits that in view of the above de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntertained a bonafide belief, that the contract entered by them is a rate contract and the payment being based on the work done by them during the existence of agreement, we find there is no malafide intention in the appellant in not discharging service tax liability from 1.7.2003. It can be seen from the above, that the claim of the Ld. Counsel that part of the demand in respect of some of the assesses is time-barred while in respect of few assesses, the entire demand is time-barred. In our considered view, the introduction of service tax law on maintenance or repairs was in initial stage during the relevant period and the perusal of rate of contract entered by the appellant would indicate that the amount paid for job done and hence can be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y not have discharged service tax liability under Section 73(1) of Finance Act, 1994. Invoking the provisions of Section 80, we hold these being reasonable cause for the appellant to be believed that they need not discharge the service tax liability, the various penalties imposed on the appellant are set aside." By following the above decision, we set aside the penalty imposed upon all the appellants. 10. In view of our foregoing the Appeal of M/s N.K. Traders is allowed by setting aside the impugned order and appeals of the other three appellants are allowed on limitation and penalty point. The matters are sent for re-quantification of the demand falling within the limitation and after treating the value as cum duty price ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
