M. Veeraiyan, J. - (1.)WE heard both sides on the stay petitions.
(2.)THE applicants have entered into contract with Eureka Forbes Ltd. (M/s. EFL) and undertake the work of maintenance and repairs of products sold by M/s. EFL. The authorities below have held that the appellants are engaged in "maintenance or repairs services" and demanded service tax from the appellants as mentioned below:
Learned advocate submits that in spite of the fact that the appellants may be doing work related to maintenance and repairs, their activity do not fall under the category of maintenance and repair services. He submits that the goods are not manufactured by EFL but by Acquamall Water Solution Ltd. and M/s. EFL is only marketing company. The EFL has entered into contracts with individual buyers for AMC contract and for the said amount, service tax is being paid by them under maintenance and repair services. Since they are not directly authorised by manufacturers of the machines, they cannot be considered to fall under the category of maintenance or repair service as it stipulates that the service shall be "provided by manufacturer or any person authorised by him". Commissioner has given a finding that M/s. EFL is the manufacturer as well as marketing company which is factually incorrect. He also submits that the appellants do not receive any fees or remunerations from the customers for whom they undertake the work on behalf of M/s. EFL. They receive payments only from M/s. EFL. He also submits that the appellants were treated as rendering business auxiliary services up to 9 -9 -04 and that they have held to be rendering business auxiliary services from 1 -4 -06. The department has held them as rendering maintenance and contract service for in -between period which is not permissible.

(3.)LEARNED DR reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals).