M/S K.S. Engineers (India) vs Cce, Lucknow

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 197-ST dated 26.11.2008 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise & Service Tax, Lucknow)

For Approval & Signature :

Honble Mr. Justice G. Raghuram, President

Honble Mr. R.K. Singh, Member (Technical)

1. Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order?

4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities?

M/s K.S. Engineers (India) Appellant

Vs.

CCE, Lucknow Respondent

Appearance:

None - for the Appellant

Shri Amresh Jain, D.R. - for the Respondent

Coram : Honble Mr. Justice G. Raghuram, President

Honble Mr. R.K. Singh, Member (Technical)

F. Order No.51786/2015

Per R.K. Singh :

Appeal has been filed against order-in-appeal dated 26.11.2008 which upheld the service tax demand of Rs.63,089/- along with interest and also upheld the penalties under Sections 77 & 78 but set aside the penalty imposed under Section 76 also by the primary adjudicating authority. The demand was confirmed under maintenance and repair service rendered to Gas Authority of India Ltd. (GAIL) during the period 2003-2004.

2. When the case was called there was no representation nor was there request for adjournment. Therefore the appeal is being decided ex-parte on merit.

3. The appellant is in its appeal has contended that it was providing consulting engineering service and not maintenance or repair service. However, it is seen that as per the agreement dated 9.6.2003 executed by the appellant with GAIL, the services rendered were job operation and maintenance of workshop machines. Maintenance and repair is defined under Section 65(64) of the Act is as under :

Maintenance or repair means any service provided by 

(i) Any person under a contract or an agreement or

(ii) A manufacturer or any person authorised by him in relation to :-

(a) Maintenance or repair including reconditioning or restoration or servicing of any goods or equipment, excluding motor vehicle; or

(b) Maintenance or management of immovable property.

4. Thus as the maintenance service was provided by the appellant under a contract/agreement, the service rendered is clearly covered under the scope of maintenance or repair service. The appellant had not taken any registration nor filed any ST-3 returns and therefore the extended period has been rightly invoked. In these circumstances, we do not find any such infirmity in the impugned order which warrants our intervention. Appeal is therefore rejected.

(Justice G. Raghuram)

President

(R.K. Singh)

Member (Technical)

RM

1