Whether the billing services provided by the appellant are eligible for exemption under Notification No.45/2010?

PJ/CASE LAW/2015-16/2602

CASE-STERLING TRANSFORMERS Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., CUS. & S. T., TIRUPATI

CITATION- 2014(35) S.T.R.396 (Tri.-Bang.)

BRIEF FACTS-The appellant is engaged in preparation of spot bills on hand held computers by taking the meter readings of electricity consumption, distributing the bills, verifying whether there is any tampering of bill at the time of taking the reading, verifying any malfunctioning of the meter, whether any theft of power has been resorted. Further appellants also attend to the disconnection of the default consumers, replacement of old meters, installation of new meters and GIS mapping of all consumers. Taking a view that appellant is liable to pay service tax on these categories under the category of ‘Business Auxiliary Service’, demand for service tax of Rs. 2,58,43,331/- with interest has been demanded and penalties under various sections of Finance Act has been imposed.

APPELANTS CONTENTION-It was submitted by the learned counsel that liability no longer subsists and is covered by the Notification which has retrospective effect. He refers to Notification No. 45/2010-S.T., dated 20-7-2010. This Notification exempts all taxable services relating to transmission and distribution of electricity provided by a person to any other person during the period up to 26-2-2010 for all taxable services relating to transmission of electricity and up to 21-6-2010 for all taxable services relating to distribution of electricity.

RESPONDENTS CONTENTION-The Commissioner has taken the view that the services rendered by the appellants are in the nature of services rendered beyond transmission and distribution of electricity and therefore he has denied the benefit of Notification.

REASONING OF JUDGMENT-On going through the order, The tribunal find that the Commissioner has taken the view that the services rendered by the appellants are in the nature of services rendered beyond transmission and distribution of electricity and therefore he has denied the benefit of Notification. It cannot be said that the items of work undertaken by the appellants discussed above are not in relation to distribution of electricity and tribunal do not find ourselves in agreement with the findings of the Commissioner. Therefore, tribunal hold that the appellant is eligible for the benefit of this Notification. Further,tribunal notice that portion of the demand relates to the period subsequent to 21-6-2010 and therefore this portion may be liable to service tax. Since this aspect has not been considered by the learned Commissioner and the finding has been limited to applicability of Notification and once it was held that Notification is not applicable there was no need to consider the period subsequent to 21-6-2010, therefore tribunal consider that the matter is required to be remanded for requantifying the demand if it is sustainable in accordance with statutory provisions for levy of service tax. Instead of postponing the decision to a subsequent date, tribunal consider it appropriate that matter is remanded at this stage itself. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the original adjudicating authority with a request to decide the matter afresh in the light of observations made by us hereinabove.

DECISION-Appeal partly allowed

COMMENT-The vital point in this case is that the exemption under Notification No.45/2010 is relating to thetransmission and distribution of electricity provided by a person to any other person during the period up to 26-2-2010 for all taxable services relating to transmission of electricity and up to 21-6-2010 for all taxable services relating to distribution of electricity and if some services relating to transmission & distribution of electricity are provided after period specified in the notification then that portion is liable for service tax and once it was held that notification is not applicable there was no need to consider the period subsequent to 21-6-2010.

.PREPARED BY-Neelam Jain

Comments

PJ/CASE LAW/2015-16/2602

Post a Comment

Query