TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 308X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by invoking extended period of limitation as the issue was before this tribunal where for the period prior to 16.05.2005 the activity of reconditioning is includable in the definition of Management, Maintenance or Repair Services in this dispute, therefore, extended period for limitation is not invokable. - activity of reconditioning by the appellant was not covered in the definition of Management, Maintenance or Repair Services for the period prior to 16.05.2005. In these terms demand of service tax is not sustainable against the appellant. Consequently, demand of interest and imposition of penalty are also not sustainable. In view of this, the impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee. - Service Tax Appeal No. 775 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s confirmed and penalties under Finance Act, 1994 were also imposed. Aggrieved from the said order appellant is before us. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that prior to 16.05.2005 the reconditioning activity was not included in the definition of Management, Maintenance or Repair Services and appellant is only engaged in the activity of reconditioning of old and used sugar mill rollers. Therefore, demand of service tax cannot be confirmed against the appellant. To support this contention, he relied on the decision of this tribunal in the case of Jagat Machinery Manufacturers P. Ltd. V/s C.C.E Ghaziabad, -2013 (32) STR 663 ITR-Delhi. Therefore, it is prayed that the impugned order is set aside. 4. He further submitted that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 005 the definition of Management, Maintenance or Repair Services did not cover the reconditioning and restoration service. 6. We further find that in this case the show cause notice has been issued by invoking extended period of limitation as the issue was before this tribunal where for the period prior to 16.05.2005 the activity of reconditioning is includable in the definition of Management, Maintenance or Repair Services in this dispute, therefore, extended period for limitation is not invokable. 7. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the activity of reconditioning by the appellant was not covered in the definition of Management, Maintenance or Repair Services for the period prior to 16.05.2005. In these terms demand of s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
