TMI Blog2011 (5) TMI 629X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere is no malafide intention in the appellant in not discharging service tax liability from 01.07.03. Therefore, Service tax liability and interest thereof within the period of limitation from the date of SCN are upheld and confirmed and service tax liability beyond the period of limitation is set aside. - ST/308-309 of 2007 (DB), 329-332 of 2007 (DB) - - - Dated:- 10-5-2011 - Shri M.V.Ravindran, Shri M.Veeraiyan, JJ. Appearance Ms. Sonal Bajaj, Departmental Representative for the respondent. Shri A.R.Madhav Rao with Shri Udayanathan, Advocate for the appellant. Per. M.V.Ravindran :- All these appeals are filed against Order-In-Appeal No.58-63(GRM)/ST/JPR-I/2007, dated 16/03/2007. 2. Heard both the sides and perused ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontract. Explaining each and every item, he would submit that the annexures indicate that as and when any work needs to be done, KTPS would get it done from one of the appellant who would complete their work issued to them and get paid as per scheduled prices. It is his submission that though contract indicates the repairs, the amount as can be seen is not as is in the case of regular maintenance contract. It is his submission that the assessee understood that the contract entered into by them as a rate contract and no service tax liability arose during the relevant period as such rate contract. It is his submission that the extended period of limitation invoked by revenue is incorrect. He would submit that from 16.06.05, the definition of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tract or agreement is covered and is liable to be taxed under the Finance Act, 1994. 10. Coming to the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel and on perusal of the agreement entered by the appellant with KTPS, we find that the said agreement does reads as capital, routine and breakdown maintenance of the ash handling plant. The said agreement also clearly indicates that the appellant would be made all payments during the existence of said agreement/contract. On a specific query from the Bench, as to whether the appellant were paid entire amount of contract, it was brought to our notice that only repair jobs undertaken in the ash handling plant were paid. In the contracts entered by the said M/s Mitul Engineering Services with KTPS it is seen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... airs 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 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 invokations of larger period is not on sound reasoning and is liable to be set aside and we do so. 11. It is also to be noted that the demand within the limitation period is liable to be confirmed on the appellant as in our considered opinion, the services rende ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
