2015 (2) TMI 887 - AT - Service Tax

Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Services - Assessee contends that activity does not fall under the said category - Held that - Issue came up before this, Tribunal in the case of Bhogavati Janseva Trust Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex., Kolhapur reported in 2014 (9) TMI 482 - CESTAT MUMBAI held that the activity of Harvesting and transportation of sugarcane from the farmer's field to the sugar factory does not fall under the category of Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Services. In the case of Amrit Sanjivni Sugarcane Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd. vide 2013 (8) TMI 58 - CESTAT MUMBAI that Tribunal has taken the same view. In these circumstances, the issue is no more res integra, therefore, we hold that in all these matters the appellants are not liable to pay service tax under the category of Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Services. - Impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues:
1. Service Tax demand confirmed under Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Services category.
2. Application for additional ground to contest service tax liability.
3. Appeal dismissed for non-compliance with statutory provisions.
4. Activity of harvesting sugarcane and transportation categorized as service.
5. Appellants contesting their activity classification.
6. Pre-deposit requirement for appeal.
7. Tribunal's precedent on similar cases.

Analysis:
1. The appellants challenged Service Tax demand confirmed under the Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Services category. The issue of liability to pay service tax was raised, and an application for additional grounds was allowed to contest this liability. The Tribunal disposed of the miscellaneous application, permitting the appellant to raise the issue of service tax liability.

2. An appeal (ST/87653/2013) was filed against an order dismissing the appeal due to non-compliance with statutory provisions. The issue of service tax liability was common in all appeals, leading to their consideration together.

3. The appellants were engaged in harvesting sugarcane and transporting it to a sugar factory. The Revenue viewed this activity as falling under Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Services. Show cause notices were issued, and some demands were paid during investigation. Appeals were made against the adjudicating authority's decisions.

4. The Tribunal heard both parties and referenced previous cases where similar activities were not categorized as Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Services. The Tribunal held that the appellants were not liable to pay service tax under this category based on precedents and the nature of the activity.

5. The Tribunal referred to cases like Bhogavati Janseva Trust and Amrit Sanjivni Sugarcane Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd., where similar activities were not considered under the service tax category in question. Based on these precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the appellants were not liable to pay service tax under the mentioned category.

6. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief. The Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation of the law and previous judgments in similar cases.

7. The judgment highlighted the importance of legal interpretation and precedent in determining service tax liability, ultimately providing relief to the appellants based on established legal principles.

← Previous Next →