COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., LUCKNOW Vs. TECHNICAL ASSOCIATES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHILE learned Counsel submits that learned appellate authority held that amounts received separately by respondent was from providing G.T.A. service and from maintenance and repair service activity carried out, learned D.R. submits that Revenue's case is that when repair and maintenance of transformer was made transporting faulty transformer, the activity carried out by Respondent was maintenance and repair. Both services are integrally connected and not separable from each other for which respondent should be brought under service of maintenance and repair.

(2.) Repelling argument of Revenue, learned Advocate for respondent explained that transportation of faulty transformer was made under a different contract while repair and maintenance of transformer was done under a different contract and both being different contracts are governed by their own terms. It was not the case of Revenue that transport was integral part of repair and maintenance. That was not found by the learned appellate authority below to be so.

(3.) WE have perused the show cause notice. Show cause notice clearly indicates that there was maintenance and repair contract. That contract has two parts. One is for lifting faulty transformers and second aspect of the contract is repair of such faulty transformer. Therefore, we looked into the finding part of the first appellate authority to know what was the reason of allowing appeal of the assessee. We are satisfied that he has recorded transport was one separate activity involved in the contract of repair which was another activity.