2008 (9) TMI 143 - AT - Service Tax

Cargo Handling services appellant s submission that the payment made to the contract labour as specified in contract and reimbursed by client should be deducted from the gross receipt, is not acceptable - it makes no difference that specific contract labour have been employed - service tax is payable on the gross value of the services - Since non payment of tax was due to wrong understanding of the new levy, imposition of equal penalty is not warranted

Summary

Issues: Liability to pay Service Tax on Cargo Handling services, Deduction of payment made to contract labour from gross receipt, Justification of service tax and interest, Imposition and waiver of penalty

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Kolkata, the issue at hand was the liability to pay Service Tax on Cargo Handling services. The appellant did not dispute their liability to pay the tax but argued that the payment made to contract labour should be deducted from the gross receipt as the labour belonged to another entity. The Tribunal noted that Service Tax is chargeable on the gross value of services provided, regardless of the specific contract labour employed. The Tribunal held that the service tax and interest confirmed in the impugned order were justified as the labourers were paid by the appellants and reimbursed for the services provided. Therefore, the specific contract labour being employed did not affect the liability to pay tax on the gross value of services.

Regarding the penalty imposed, the appellant argued that they believed they were eligible for a deduction towards payment of wages to contract labour due to a misunderstanding of the new levy of service tax. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions and provisions of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, found that the imposition of an equal penalty was not warranted in this case. Therefore, while confirming the levy of service tax and interest, the Tribunal decided to waive the penalty imposed, as they were satisfied that the non-payment was not a deliberate attempt to evade tax but a result of a misunderstanding. The appeal was rejected except for the waiver of the penalty amount. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in open court by the members of the Tribunal, Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, and Shri D.N. Panda.