2015 (4) TMI 38 - AT - Service Tax

Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agency Service - activities of cutting/harvesting and transporting of sugarcane to Sugar factory - first appellate authority came to a conclusion that the services rendered by the appellant would not fall under the category of manpower supply agency service - Held that - Since then much water has flown and now sufficient amendments are made in the relevant provisions. We are told that now all services, except the services mentioned in the negative list are made taxable. Until this provision is made i.e. July 2012, the situation was different for the Revenue and apparently, the services rendered by the respondent at the relevant time were found not taxable. - Decision in the case of Bhogavati Janseva Trust Vs. CCE, Kolhapur 2014 (9) TMI 482 - CESTAT MUMBAI and Satara Sahakari Shetu Audyogik Oos Todani Vahtook Society Vs. CCE, Kolhapur 2014 (12) TMI 42 - CESTAT MUMBAI followed - No merit in appeal filed by Revenue - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues involved: Service tax liability under "Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agency Service".

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against an Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune. The issue revolved around the service tax liability of the respondent under the category of "Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agency Service". The lower authorities confirmed the service tax liability as the respondent, registered under a cooperative society, engaged in activities like cutting/harvesting and transporting sugarcane to sugar factories through labor contractors. However, the first appellate authority set aside the order-in-original, concluding that the services provided did not fall under the category of manpower supply agency service.

2. The Tribunal referred to previous judgments on similar issues, such as Bhogavati Janseva Trust and Satara Sahakari Shetu Audyogik Oos Todani Vahtook Society, where the bench ruled in favor of the assessee. The Tribunal also mentioned a case involving Godavari Khore Cane Transport Company Pvt. Ltd., where the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision. The Tribunal highlighted that the services provided by the respondent were part of a package deal to supply raw material to sugar factories, and the nature of the work was understood by the parties involved. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of interpreting agreements based on their terms and conditions.

3. The Tribunal observed that when the notice and demand for service tax were issued, the relevant provisions did not cover the specific services provided by the respondent. The Tribunal noted that amendments made in the relevant provisions after the issuance of the notice clarified the taxable services. The Tribunal concluded that, based on the judicial pronouncements and the historical context of service tax implementation, the appeal filed by the Revenue lacked merit. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was rejected, and the cross objection filed by the appellant was disposed of accordingly.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive overview of the legal issues, judicial precedents, and the Tribunal's reasoning in deciding the appeal related to service tax liability under the category of "Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agency Service".