S.S. Kang, Vice President
1. Heard learned SDR and considered the written submission submitted by the respondent vide letter dated 23rd January 2008.
2. In this case, show cause notice was issued to the respondent for demand of Service Tax on the ground that respondent provided the maintenance and repair service. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand and imposed the penalties. The respondent filed appeal and Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the demand on the ground that the contract in question is only a rate contract other than the maintenance contract.
3. With the written submission, respondent filed the copies of the contract. We have gone through the contract, the contract is for routine/break down and capital maintenance of H.T. Motors and routine and break down maintenance of L.T. Motors. In the schedule of prices, it is also for maintenance of the H.T. Motors. In view of the terms contract, copy of which is produced by the respondent, the contract is not only for repair, it is a maintenance contract and as per the provisions of the Finance Act Maintenance or Repair Service means any service provided by a person under a maintenance contract or agreement or repair in respect of maintenance or repair of goods. In the present case, as service provided under a contract, which is a maintenance contract, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable, hence set aside. The order passed by the Adjudicating Authority is restored. Appeal is allowed.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)