2016 (12) TMI 1529 - AT - Service Tax

Service tax liability - Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency service - Held that - service rendered by the appellant in respect of the Magnaflux testing and rectification of defects, the agreement also does not indicate that what all functions that needs to be undertaken by the appellant for holding him under the category of Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency service. Since this agreement and various other submissions as to the inclusion of tax liability etc. was not taken before the Adjudicating Authority in the absence of any reply or availing the opportunity of personal hearing, we deem it fit to leave the issue to be decided by the Adjudicating Authority on remand proceedings - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved:
Service tax liability on services under the category of Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency service.

Analysis:

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI revolves around the service tax liability concerning Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency services. The appeal challenges Order-in-Original No. 57/KLG (57) COMMR/RGD/11-12 dated 29.03.2012. The Adjudicating Authority had upheld the demands with interest and imposed penalties. The appellant's consultant sought a remand, arguing that the issue was misconstrued and that the agreements with various companies did not indicate falling under the said service category.

Upon review, the Tribunal observed that one of the agreements provided did not clarify the specific services rendered by the appellant, thus warranting a remand for a fresh consideration. Despite not delving into the case's merits, the Tribunal set aside the original order and remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for a reevaluation following the principles of natural justice. The appellant was instructed to respond to the show-cause notice within four weeks and present all relevant documents for consideration.

In conclusion, the appeal was disposed of by remanding it back to the Adjudicating Authority for a thorough reexamination of the issue at hand. The Tribunal refrained from expressing any opinion on the case's substance, emphasizing the need for a fair and just reconsideration based on the provided evidence and compliance with procedural requirements.