2013 (3) TMI 736 - AT - Service Tax

Summary

Issues involved:
- Condonation of delay in filing appeal
- Classification of service under "Business Auxiliary Service" vs. "Manpower Supply Services"
- Demands for service tax, interest, and penalties
- Exclusion of certain amounts from service tax liability
- Verification of original duty paying challans and documents

Condonation of delay in filing appeal:
The COD application was filed to condone a delay of 251 days in filing the appeal. The delay was attributed to the appellant not being informed promptly about the order. The appellant argued that denial of condonation would result in a miscarriage of justice. Citing a Supreme Court decision, the COD application was allowed.

Classification of service:
The appellant was supplying manpower to a company and classified the service under "Business Auxiliary Service" to avail an exemption. The department disagreed and issued a notice proposing to classify the service under "Manpower Supply Services," leading to a demand for service tax. The appellant contested, stating they had paid service tax and submitted challans. The department demanded original challans, which the appellant failed to provide, resulting in the demand confirmation.

Demands for service tax:
The demands were based on discrepancies between income shown in balance sheets and ST3 returns. The appellant argued for exclusions such as employees' contributions, toll collection charges, and services to the Military Engineering Services. The appellant offered to pre-deposit a reduced amount, which was accepted. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration.

Verification of documents:
The adjudicating authority failed to verify the service tax payments and other relevant documents submitted by the appellant. The contributions towards ESIC and PF were found non-taxable. Services provided to non-commercial entities like Military Engineering Services were also deemed exempt from service tax. The case was remanded for a thorough reconsideration of all issues.

Conclusion:
The appeals were allowed by way of remand, with the appellant directed to make a pre-deposit and submit all necessary documentary evidence. The matter was to be heard afresh by the adjudicating authority.