M/s Alfa Auto Industries (P) Ltd. vs CCE, Ludhiana

Appeal has been filed against order in appeal No.19/CE/LDH/2009 dated 30.01.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals),

Chandigarh in terms of which service tax demand of Rs.1,08,655/- alongwith interest and penalties under Sections 76 and 77 of Finance Act, 1994

was upheld.

The facts in brief are as under:

During the scrutiny of records of the appellants was observed that during the period 2005-06 they received Rs.11,73,900/- on account of repair of old

machines which was covered under the category of maintenance and repair service. They never disclosed this fact and never reflected it in their

service tax returns. While the primary adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of Rs.1,19,738/- invoking the extended period, the appellant

authority allowed the cum tax benefit and reduced the demand to Rs.1,08,655/-.

In the grounds of appeal the appellants have contended that there was no suppression on their part. They were duly registered and submitted their

returns and they were not aware that there was service tax liability on such repair work.

No one appeared at the time of personal hearing and therefore the appeal is being disposed of on merit on the basis of evidence on record.

It is seen that the appellate authority duly extended the cum-tax benefit. The repair work done by the appellant is clearly covered under the

maintenance or repair service as defined during the relevant period in Section 65(64) of Finance Act, 1994. The appellants have not given any basis as

to how they inferred that they were not covered under Maintenance or Repair Service when its definition in Section 65(64)) ibid hardly leaves any

scope for such inference on the part of the appellants. The appellants were registered for GT A services under Section 69 of Finance Act, 1994 but

did not show the figures relating to the impugned service in their ST-3 returns nor registered under Maintenance or Repair Service. Having already

taken registration under GT A Service, they were familiar with the Service Tax provisions. Thus, the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly held that

extended period is invocable in this case.

In the light of the foregoing, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal is dismissed.