2018 (6) TMI 798 - AT - Service Tax

Demand of Service Tax - Supply of tangible goods Services - Held that - Supply of camp used for residence of labourers cannot be considered as a taxable service under the supply of tangible goods service . Inasmuch as camp as such is not supplied by the appellant and the same was already at the site of client. Thus service tax demand on supply of camp cannot be taxed under supply of tangible goods service - the facts as contended by the appellant can only be verified by the adjudicating authority - matter on remand. Renting of immovable property Service - appellant submits that the amount debited towards such service in the Cenvat Credit Account has not been considered by the Original Authority while adjudicating the dispute - Held that - The matter remanded to the Original Adjudicating Authority for proper factual finding where the amount in question has been debited by the appellant from its CENVAT credit account. If the amount has already been debited as given by the appellant the demand should be on such account which should be dropped by the Original Authority. Supply of Manpower Services - appellant contended that they have deposited service tax amount towards such category of service - Held that - Since there is no specific finding with regard to payment made by the appellant at this juncture this matter should also be remanded to the Original Authority for necessary verification. Commercial while the demand has been confirmed under the taxable category of Site Formation Service - Scope of SCN - Held that - The adjudicating authority has travelled beyond the scope of SCN inasmuch as it had proposed for confirmation of demand under CICS whereas the demand was confirmed under Site Formation Service in the adjudication order. Change in classification of service in the adjudication order is not proper and justified - demand set aside. Penalty - suppression of facts - Held that - Since the Original Authority has invoked the proviso to Section 73 (1) of the Finance Act 1994 and imposed penalty under Section 78 of the said Act mere non-mentioning the word suppression will not deprive the Revenue in any manner for which the appeal cannot be preferred before the Tribunal - decided against Revenue. Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Taxability of services related to supply of tangible goods
2. Taxability of renting of immovable property services
3. Taxability of supply of manpower services
4. Taxability of commercial and residential complex services
5. Excess service tax paid and double confirmation of amounts

Analysis:

1. Supply of tangible goods services:
The appellant argued against the taxability of bunk house accommodation under "supply of tangible goods" service, citing a precedent. The Tribunal found that without documentary evidence of the bunk house creation at the client's site, the matter should be re-evaluated by the Adjudicating Authority. Similarly, for the supply of air-conditioners and generators, the Original Authority was directed to verify if the supplies were made before the taxable category inclusion date. The tax demand on the supply of camp used for laborers' residence was also deemed not taxable under this service, subject to verification by the Adjudicating Authority.

2. Renting of immovable property services:
The appellant contended that the amount debited from the Cenvat Credit Account was not considered by the Original Authority. The Tribunal remanded the matter for factual findings on the debited amount, emphasizing that if the amount was already debited, the demand should be dropped.

3. Supply of Manpower services:
Regarding the supply of manpower services, the appellant claimed to have deposited the service tax amount. However, due to the lack of specific findings on the payment, the matter was remanded to the Original Authority for verification of tax compliance.

4. Commercial and Residential Complex services:
The show cause notice proposed demand confirmation under "Commercial & Industrial Construction Service," but the demand was confirmed under "Site Formation Service." The Tribunal held that changing the classification in the adjudication order was improper, leading to the demand being set aside.

5. Excess service tax paid and double confirmation of amounts:
The appellant raised issues of excess payment and double confirmation of service tax amounts during the investigation. The Tribunal directed the Original Authority to properly address these concerns after considering other issues upon remand.

6. Penalty imposition by Revenue:
The Revenue's appeal was dismissed as the Tribunal found that the absence of the word "suppression" in the order did not impact the penalty imposition under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appeal was thus rejected.

In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of both appeals based on the detailed analysis and directions provided for each issue, emphasizing the need for proper verification, documentation, and adherence to tax categories in the adjudication process.