Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Dusad Transformer and

Commr. of C. Ex. vs Dusad Transformer and

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Aug 02, 2006

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/43305

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/43305
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: S Kang, Vice-, N T C.N.B.
Decided On: Aug 02, 2006
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Criminal

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commr. of C. Ex.

Respondent

Dusad Transformer and

Legal References

Reported In: (2006)(110)ECC481

Excerpt

1. the common issue is involved in both the appeals, therefore, are being taken up together.2. revenue filed these appeals against the order in appeal passed by the commissioner (appeals) whereby the demand of service tax was dropped that respondent had not provided any service of maintenance and repair.3. the contention of the revenue is that as per the agreement entered between the respondents and electricity board shows that respondents provided maintenance and repair services. on the other hand, the contention of the respondents is that the contract is not for maintenance and repair but it is only a rate contract and respondents relied upon the board circular dated 27-7-2005. it is submitted by the respondent that prior to 16-6-2005, repair of servicing carried out under a contract other than maintenance contract or agreement was not entered within the purview of service tax.4. we pursued the agreement in question. it is a work contract. the contract provides rates for repair of transformers and also provides guarantee for the transformers repaired by the respondent. as per the board circular dated 27-7-2005, prior to 16-6-2005 repair of service carried out under the contract other than the maintenance contract or agreement was not covered within the purview of service tax. in absence of any maintenance contract, we find no infirmity in the impugned order. the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed. cross-objections are also disposed of as indicated above.

Full Judgment

1. The common issue is involved in both the appeals, therefore, are being taken up together.

2. Revenue filed these appeals against the order in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the demand of Service Tax was dropped that respondent had not provided any service of maintenance and repair.

3. The contention of the Revenue is that as per the agreement entered between the respondents and Electricity Board shows that respondents provided maintenance and repair services. On the other hand, the contention of the respondents is that the contract is not for maintenance and repair but it is only a rate contract and respondents relied upon the Board Circular dated 27-7-2005. It is submitted by the respondent that prior to 16-6-2005, repair of servicing carried out under a contract other than maintenance contract or agreement was not entered within the purview of Service Tax.

4. We pursued the agreement in question. It is a work contract. The contract provides rates for repair of transformers and also provides guarantee for the transformers repaired by the respondent. As per the Board Circular dated 27-7-2005, prior to 16-6-2005 repair of service carried out under the contract other than the maintenance contract or agreement was not covered within the purview of Service Tax. In absence of any maintenance contract, we find no infirmity in the impugned order. The appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed. Cross-objections are also disposed of as indicated above.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Commr. of C. Ex. vs Dusad Transformer and Same Subject Criminal Same Judge S Kang, Vice-, N T C.N.B.