2016 (1) TMI 159 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation delay - appeal could not be filed due to non receipt of order - order was passed on 20/09/2011 - appellant contended that, when the Revenue approached them for recovery proceedings, they came to know about the fact of passing of the said order. They immediately approached the Revenue, procured a copy of the impugned order on 07/04/2014 and filed appeal on 30/06/2014. - Held that - In view of the above clarification and in view of the absence of any evidence showing actual dispatch of the impugned order to the appellant, we hold that the date of receipt of the impugned order was 07/04/2014, when a copy of the said order was given to the appellant. The appeal stand filed within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of the said order and as such, it is within the limitation period. COD application is accordingly allowed. Waiver of pre-deposit - Business Support Services - manpower recruitment or supply agency - Inasmuch as information technology service to non-profit organisations was not taxable prior to 01/07/2010 and in this case the period involved is prior to the said date, no tax liability would arise. As the major part of the demand under the said category is on account of this particular category, he prays for dispensation with the condition of predeposit. - Held that - we, though, find favour with the appellant s contention in respect of the main contract but appreciating that there are other smaller contracts involved in which case the service consideration is a particular fixed amount per person, we are of the view that the appellant has not made out a prima facie case in respect of the other contracts. As such considering overall facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the appellant/applicant to deposit ₹ 10 lakhs (Rupees ten lakhs only) out of the said ₹ 69.70 lakhs. Delay condoned - stay granted partly.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Delay in receipt of impugned order affecting limitation period for filing appeal.
2. Confirmation of service tax under different categories.
3. Dispute regarding provision of services under the category of manpower recruitment.
4. Requirement of pre-deposit for hearing the appeal.

Analysis:

1. Delay in receipt of impugned order:
The appellant argued that they were unaware of the impugned order's existence until the Revenue initiated recovery proceedings in 2014. The Revenue claimed the order was dispatched in 2011, but no evidence of actual dispatch to the appellant was presented. The Tribunal held that the date of receipt was in 2014 when a copy was obtained, allowing the appeal within the limitation period.

2. Confirmation of service tax under different categories:
A service tax of Rs. 14.20 lakhs was confirmed for Business Support Services, and Rs. 69.70 lakhs for manpower recruitment. The Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit Rs. 7 lakhs for the support services category due to services provided to a specific corporation.

3. Dispute regarding manpower recruitment services:
The appellant contended that they were not supplying manpower but executing an e-Seva scheme for the Andhra Pradesh Government, potentially falling under Information Technology services exempt before 01/07/2010. The Revenue argued that various contracts showed the provision of manpower, leading to a demand for Rs. 69.70 lakhs. The Tribunal directed a deposit of Rs. 10 lakhs considering the multiple contracts involved.

4. Requirement of pre-deposit for hearing the appeal:
The Tribunal ordered the appellant to deposit specific amounts within twelve weeks to hear the appeal, with the pre-deposit of the balance dues waived subject to compliance. The appellant's lack of financial hardship plea or supporting records was noted.

In conclusion, the Tribunal addressed the delay in receiving the order, confirmed service tax under different categories, resolved the dispute over manpower recruitment services, and imposed pre-deposit conditions for hearing the appeal, ensuring compliance within a specified timeframe.