S.P. Sharma Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

S.P. Sharma vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Oct 24, 2007

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/46336

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/46336
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: S Kang, Vice, S T T.V.
Decided On: Oct 24, 2007
Subject: Service Tax

Case Summary

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

Service Tax

Key legal issue: Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

S.P. Sharma

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In: (2008)12STJ314CESTATNew(Delhi)

Excerpt

1. the appellant has filed this application for waiver of service tax amounting to rs. 1,57,438/- and penalty. the demand is confirmed by treating the appellant as provider of maintenance or maintenance of repair of property. the contention of the applicant is that they had only undertaken the job of painting of the premises of electricity board under the work contract. the contention is that demand is for the period prior to amendment in the year 2006 also. prior to the amendment, service is described as maintenance or management of immovable property. therefore, prior to amendment in 2006, the applicant is not liable to pay the service tax because they were not providing any service and maintenance of immovable property.2. subsequent to the amendment, the contention is that applicant is not providing any service for repair of property. it is only undertaking the job of painting. the contention is that in that case the demand can only be for rs. 7,000/-.3. the contention of the revenue is that painting of building is also repair of the property. the painting is done only for maintenance of the building, and, maintenance also includes repair. therefore, the demand was rightly made.4. we find that demand is for providing services as maintenance or repair of property. the applicant has only undertaken the job of painting under work contract. in these circumstances, we find that appellant has a strong case in their favour.5. the pre-deposit of amount of service tax and penalty, is waived for the purpose of hearing the appeal. stay application is allowed.

Full Judgment

1. The appellant has filed this application for waiver of Service Tax amounting to Rs. 1,57,438/- and penalty. The demand is confirmed by treating the appellant as provider of maintenance or maintenance of repair of property. The contention of the applicant is that they had only undertaken the job of painting of the premises of Electricity Board under the work contract. The contention is that demand is for the period prior to amendment in the year 2006 also. Prior to the amendment, service is described as maintenance or management of immovable property. Therefore, prior to amendment in 2006, the applicant is not liable to pay the service tax because they were not providing any service and maintenance of immovable property.

2. Subsequent to the amendment, the contention is that applicant is not providing any service for repair of property. It is only undertaking the job of painting. The contention is that in that case the demand can only be for Rs. 7,000/-.

3. The contention of the Revenue is that painting of building is also repair of the property. The painting is done only for maintenance of the building, and, maintenance also includes repair. Therefore, the demand was rightly made.

4. We find that demand is for providing services as maintenance or repair of property. The applicant has only undertaken the job of painting under work contract. In these circumstances, we find that appellant has a strong case in their favour.

5. The pre-deposit of amount of service tax and penalty, is waived for the purpose of hearing the appeal. Stay application is allowed.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties S.P. Sharma vs Commissioner of Central Excise Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge S Kang, Vice, S T T.V.