9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 77X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anagement Maintenance or Repair Services". Aggrieved against the impugned order, the Appellant has filed this appeal. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that during the period under dispute i.e. 2006-07 to 2009-10 and 2010-11, the Appellant executed various contracts for their client M/s Tata Steels Ltd. against different work orders awarded by them for "Fabrication" & "Erection" "Cleaning" & "Up keep" and "Replacement" Work. Out of total 16 work orders, the Appellant collected service tax against 5 work orders and deposited the same with the Department. No service tax was collected on works executed against rest 11 work orders. This fact has been admitted in the O-I-O. The gross value of contracts and work orders executed during the material period is duly reflected in their regular books of accounts and Profit and Loss A/c for the respective periods. 3. A Show Cause Notice dated 21-10-2011 was issued to the Appellant alleging that they are engaged in providing services namely Commercial or Industrial construction service, Maintenance & Repair and Cleaning Service and demanded service tax of Rs.30,73,331/- (including E.Cess & HSE.Cess) on the taxable value of Rs.2,42,85,907 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng and Civil Structures", "Maintenance or Repair Services'', "Cleaning Services" and Erection, Commissioning and Installation" only and no other amendment in services has been included further. Hence, the Adjudicating authority is right in confirming the demands raised in the SCN that classified the nature of services provided by the appellant on the basis of their admission during recording of statement and purchase orders/work orders submitted by the appellant during the investigation process and the appellant is liable to pay the applicable Service tax on the amount received from M/s. Tata Steel Limited, Noamundi for the said services." (ii) In the impugned order, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has attempted to justify the levy under the above stated categories on the ground that they are registered under the said three categories, hence, they are liable to pay service tax there under, which is illegal . In support of this contention, the Appellant relies on the decisions of the Tribunal in the case of Jetlite (India) Ltd. Vs. CCE reported in 2011 (21) STR 119 (Tri. -Del.) (iii) The Appellant submits that the work of "Fabrication" and "Erection" and "Replacement" cannot be cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he scope of Show Cause Notice and hence not sustainable. In this regard the Appellant relies on the decision in the case of CCE Vs. Shital International reported in (2011) 1 SCC 109. It is their contention that Show Cause Notice is vague as there is no separate bifurcation under the three categories of service and how the value of services are taxable under the category of "Management, Maintenance or Repair Service", Commercial or Industrial Constriction Service and "Cleaning Service". (x) The Order-In-Original dated 14-03-2013 is totally unreasoned as there is no finding on merit by the Ld. Addl. Commissioner as to how the purported service provided by the Appellant is taxable under the category of "Commercial or Industrial Construction Services", "Management, Maintenance or Repairs Services" and "Cleaning Services" as proposed in the Show Cause Notice. The Ld.Commissioner(Appeal) has attempted to supply reasons in OIO. It is well settled that disclosure of reasons by the appellate authority cannot be a substitute of the reasoning of the adjudicating authority. In support of this contention, the Appellant relied on Oryx Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. UOI, [2011 (266) E.L.T 422 (S.C). ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emanding tax only under the category of 'Management, maintenance or Repair Service' not any other category of service, hence, they are not liable to pay tax under any other category of service. They have under taken the works of panel replacement, steel fabrication and erection jobs. The contention of the Appellant is that the work of "Replacement" and "Repair" are different, distinct and separate. In support of their contention, they cited the case of CIT Vs. Madras Cement Ltd reported in [2002] 295 ITR 243(Mad) (Page 5) the Hon'ble Madras High Court, wherein it has been held that: "Repair" implies the existence of a thing which has malfunctioned and can be set right by effecting repairs which may involve replacement of some parts, thereby making the thing as efficient as it was before or as close to it as possible. After repair the thing to which repair was carried out continues to be available for use. Replacement is different from repair. Replacement implies the removal or discarding of the thing that was in use, by a different or new thing capable of performing the same function with the same, lesser or greater efficiency............" 8.1. The Appellant submits th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
