TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1182X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d upheld. Benefit of N/N. 12/2003–ST dated 1/3/2006 - the benefit is available only subject to satisfaction of conditions specified therein. One of the conditions is that the assessee should be in possession of documentary evidence indicating of value of goods/materials sold along with the provision of service. Further, no Cenvat Credit of duty in respect of such goods and materials should have been availed - Held that: - the appellant has failed to substantiate that they have fulfilled these conditions. They have also not placed any evidence to justify the benefit of notification - benefit rightly denied. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - ST/52249/2014- [DB] - ST/A/57943/2017-CU[DB] - Dated:- 17-11-2017 - Dr. Satish ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... service covered under the heading management, maintenance or repair service falling under Section 65 (105) (zzzg) of the Finance Act, 1994. readwith Section 65 (64) ibid. Accordingly, show cause notice dated 24/10/11 was issued to the appellant and the impugned order was passed confirming the demand of Service Tax amounting to ₹ 46,53,610/- along with interest and penalties under various Sections. Aggrieved by the impugned order the present appeal has been filed. 4. With the above background we heard Shri Manish Gaud, Ld. Advocate for the appellant as well as Shri Amresh Jain, Ld. DR for the Department. 5. The argument advanced by Shri Manish Gaud, Ld Advocate is summarized below. i. The activity undertaken by the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tax. He argued that the activity performed is in the nature of repair services and service tax will be liable to be paid. He also added that the appellant will not be eligible for benefit of Notification No.12/2003 for failure to satisfy the conditions specified therein. 7. We have heard both sides and perused the record. The appellant is in the business of footwear. They have also undertaken the activity of repair of footwear. The Adjudicating Authority has examined the nature of activity carried out by the appellant and after perusal of copies of invoices raised by the appellant, he has recorded the finding that the same have been issued only for repair services. Further, he has recorded that there is no bifurcation of amount being ch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e conditions. They have also not placed any evidence to justify the benefit of notification as above. Consequently, we find no reason to interfere with the finding of Adjudicating Authority that the appellant is labile to pay Service Tax on the consideration received as well as will not be tangible for benefit of Notification No. 12/2003-ST. 10. The appellant also advanced the argument that the activity rendered by them will be covered under Works Contract Service specified in Section 65 (105) (zzzza). After perusal of the definition prevalent during the relevant time, we find that activity carried out is not covered within the meaning of the term Works Contract as defined therein. Accordingly, we dismiss this argument raised by the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
