9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 665X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wed the appeal of the appellant. 2. The appellant was engaged in providing various services which fell under the categories of construction of complex services, management, maintenance and repair services, etc. A show cause notice [SCN] dated 18.10.2011 was issued to the appellant covering the period 2006-2007 to 2010-2011 demanding duty of Rs. 35,58,757/- under the following categories :- (a) Rs. 21,49,471/- under the category of construction of complex services ; (b) Rs. 26,149/- under the category of technical testing and analysis services ; (c) Rs. 13,83,137/- under the category of Management, Maintenance & Repair Services. 3. The Original Authority, confirmed the demands proposed in the SCN and also imposed penalties under sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion and PHED is also a State Government Department. He submits that in terms of Board Circular No. B-2/8/2004-TRU dated 10.09.2004 and Board Circular No. 80/2004 dated 17.09.2004, service tax is not leviable on these services. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant also assailed the invocation of extended period of limitation and, therefore, prayed that the appeal may be allowed and the impugned order may be set aside. 8. Learned authorized representative for the revenue reiterated the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order. 9. We have considered the submissions on both sides and perused the records. The two Board's circulars relied upon by the learned counsel explained the scope of various services and their taxabil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , however, found that the appellant's services were not covered by this section as the appellant had not managed or maintained or repair any non-commercial Government buildings, but had maintained pipelines as admitted by the appellant itself. The relevant paragraphs 12 and 13 of the impugned order are reproduced below :- "12. Regarding the demand of Rs. 144954/- and Rs. 1238183/- confirmed under the category 'Management, Maintenance or repair' service. I find that the appellant have contested these confirmed demands on the ground that since these services were provided to RHB and PHED which are Government body hence the same is not liable to service tax in view of the provision of section 98 incorporated in the Finance Act, 1994 vide Fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have been provided are not Government buildings hence benefits under provisions of section 98 can't be extended to them. Therefore, I upheld the demand of Rs. 144954/- and Rs. 1238183/- confirmed by the adjudicating authority vide the impugned order along with interest and penalty imposed under section 78 in this regard". 12. We fully agree with the learned Commissioner (Appeals). We find that there is no case for the appellant to claim an exemption from payment of service tax under management, maintenance and repair services either under section 98 of the Act or under the two CBEC Circulars, indicated above. Undisputedly, the appellant had not maintained any non-commercial buildings of the Government, but had maintained pipelines which we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
