2018 (5) TMI 830 - AT - Service Tax

Manpower Recruitment or supply Agency service - extended period of limitation - Held that - the issue of extended period was already discussed by the lower authorities and we agree with it. Regarding the quantum, it is evident that the assessee-Appellant is claiming that the services of Manpower Recruitment or supply Agency by any person after 01.05.2006 were brought under the clutches of Section 65(68) of the Finance Act, 2006 and prior to it only commercial concern were taxable. An identical issue has come up for consideration before the Tribunal in the case of Charanjeet Singh Khanuja vs CST, Indore, 2015 (6) TMI 585 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , where it was held that notwithstanding the fact that w.e.f. 1-5-2006 the term, commercial concern in Section 65(105)(zzb) was replaced by any person , we are of the view that even during the period prior to 1-5-2006, the Business Auxiliary Service, even if provided by an individual to a client, was taxable. Appeal dismissed - decided against assessee-Appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal dismissed for non-prosecution
2. Restoration of appeal
3. Appeal filed against Order-in-Appeal
4. Service tax liability during a specific period
5. Interpretation of relevant legal provisions
6. Application of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994
7. Arguments presented by both sides
8. Tribunal's decision and reasoning

1. Appeal dismissed for non-prosecution:
The judgment begins by mentioning the recall of an earlier order where the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution. The reasons for dismissal were cited in the RoA Application, leading to the restoration of the appeal to its original number.

2. Restoration of appeal:
Upon the consent of both parties, the Tribunal proceeded to decide the appeal on its merits after the appeal was restored to its original number.

3. Appeal filed against Order-in-Appeal:
The appeal was filed by the assessee against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, concerning a period from 16.06.2005 to 31.03.2006.

4. Service tax liability during a specific period:
The assessee, engaged in supplying labor services, was not registered with the Central Excise Department during the disputed period. The Department calculated the Service Tax based on the labor supplied, as the assessee had not filed returns or paid taxes during that time.

5. Interpretation of relevant legal provisions:
The Tribunal considered the issue of the extended period and the applicability of Section 65(68) of the Finance Act, 2006, in relation to the services provided by the assessee. Reference was made to a previous Tribunal case to support the decision.

6. Application of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994:
The assessee was granted the benefit of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, which resulted in no penalty being imposed despite the tax liability.

7. Arguments presented by both sides:
The Tribunal heard arguments from the counsel representing both the assessee and the Revenue before making its decision.

8. Tribunal's decision and reasoning:
After reviewing the records and considering the arguments, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The decision of the lower authorities was sustained, leading to the dismissal of the appeal filed by the assessee. The RoA application was also disposed of accordingly.