SHARDA UDYOG Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, GHAZIABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is in appeal against the impugned order where demand of service tax, interest and penalties has been confirmed against the appellant under the category of Management, Maintenance or Repair Services. In brief, the case is that appellant is engaged in manufacture of sugar mill machinery and sugar mill roller and parts thereof. They have also under taken the process of shelling, deshelling and reshelling of old and worn out sugar mill roller supplied by various sugar mills. The contention of the appellant is that the appellant is engaged in the activity of reconditioning of old and used sugar mill rollers and obtained service tax registration with effect from 16 -5 -2005, as reconditioning has been included in the definition of Management, Maintenance or Repair Services w.e.f. 16 -5 -2005. The Revenue is of the view that the activity of the appellant is chargeable to service tax prior to the period 16 -5 -2005. Therefore, a show cause notice dated 24 -1 -2008 was issued for the period July, 2003 to May, 2005 demanding service tax on the activity of the appellant under the category of Management, Maintenance or Repair Services. The show cause notice was adjudicated, demand of service tax along with interest was confirmed and penalties under Finance Act, 1994 were also imposed. Aggrieved from the said order appellant is before us.

(2.) HE further submitted that in this case show cause notice has been issued by invoking extended period of limitation, when it is in dispute whether activity of reconditioning was liable to service tax prior to 16 -5 -2005 or not. Whether prior to 16 -5 -2005 the activity of reconditioning was liable to service tax when the activity of reconditioning was specifically included in the definition of Management, Maintenance or Repair Services is liable to service tax. The issue came up before this tribunal in the case of Jagat Machinery Manufacturers P. Ltd. (Supra) where this tribunal has observed as under:

(3.) WE do not agree with the above observations of the ld. Commissioner (Appeal). Admittedly, reconditioning and restoration' was not available in the definition of Management, Maintenance or Repair Services prior to 16 -5 -2005 and same was specifically introduced with effect from 16 -5 -2005. Thereafter, this Tribunal has arrived at a decision that for the period prior to 16 -5 -2005 the definition of Management, Maintenance or Repair Services did not cover the reconditioning and restoration service.