UB ENGINEERING LIMITED Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE stay application and appeal have been filed by the appellant with respect to OIO No. 68/Commr/2013 dated 24.05.2013 passed by Commissioner, Rajkot confirming demand of Rs. 1,04,93,774/ -, along with interest and also imposed penalties under various sections of the Finance Act, 1994.

(2.) SHRI V.K. Jain (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that out of total confirmed demand an amount of Rs. 30,66,412/ - pertains to Maintenance and Repair Services provided by appellant to M/s. Reliance Industries during the period October 2003 to March 2008. It was his case that all these services of Maintenance and Repairs were provided before 16.06.2005 when Maintenance and Repairs of immovable property was not taxable under Maintenance and Repair Services and only maintenance and repairs of movable property was chargeable to service tax under the service tax provisions. Learned Advocate argued that majority of demand (nearly Rs. 25 Lakh) was pertaining to the period prior to 16.06.2005 which was clearly specified in the contracts. He made the bench go through various Paras of the order -in -original to drive home the point that nature of services provided was clearly available in the contracts. That remaining amount of confirmed demand of Rs. 74,27,362/ -, pertaining to the period April 2004 to October 2008, was for the services provided by the appellant as sub -contractor when the main contractor has already discharged duty liability on the full value of the services. It was his case that as per CBEC Circular No. dated 23.08.2007 only it was provided that sub -contractors are liable to service tax and that before this period as per prescribed legal proposition service tax was not required to be paid by the sub -contractor, if the main contractor has paid service tax on the entire value of the contracted service. It was also his case that various arguments of the appellant on time bar aspect have not been properly dealt by the adjudicating authority and the case should be remanded back to him for passing a reasoned order after addressing to all the issues raised by the appellant. He relied upon the following case laws to support his claims: -

(3.) HEARD both sides and perused the case records. As the issue lies in a narrow compass, therefore, after allowing the stay application the appeal itself is taken up for disposal.