2020 (11) TMI 14 - AT - Service Tax

Levy of Service tax or VAT? - transaction of work wear rental - supply of tangible goods Service or not - right to use the goods - HELD THAT - The Commissioner (Appeals) of Hyderabad Commissionerate has also held in the appellant s own case M/S LINDSTROM SERVICE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE SERVICE TAX 2019 (8) TMI 427 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH held that work wear does not amount to supply of tangible goods so as to attract service tax. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the activity of work wear rental falls under the category of supply of tangible goods for service tax.

Analysis:
The case involved a Show Cause Notice issued to the appellant alleging engagement in "work wear rental," considered under service tax net for supply of tangible goods. The original authority confirmed tax, interest, and penalty, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal. The appellant argued that work wear rental does not constitute supply of tangible goods but a deemed sale, having paid VAT on transactions. The appellant referenced the attributes for a transaction to transfer the right to use goods, citing a Supreme Court judgment. The appellant highlighted fulfilling these attributes in work wear leasing, asserting that the demand under service tax was unjustified.

The appellant also pointed out previous favorable decisions in similar cases by the Tribunal and the Hyderabad Commissionerate, emphasizing that possession, right to use, and effective control of work wear were transferred, making the activity non-taxable under supply of tangible goods. On the contrary, the department argued that the transaction involved leasing goods and maintenance, not an actual sale, citing a Tribunal decision in another case. After hearing both sides and examining the agreement's terms and conditions, the Tribunal considered whether work wear rental constituted supply of tangible goods for service tax. The Tribunal referred to a Chandigarh Bench decision analyzing a similar agreement, concluding that the appellant did not have control over the work wear's use, thus not constituting a taxable service under the Finance Act. The Tribunal also noted the Hyderabad Commissionerate's decision in the appellant's favor, aligning with the Chandigarh Bench's analysis. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with any consequential relief.

In summary, the Tribunal's judgment revolved around determining whether work wear rental fell under the service tax net for supply of tangible goods. The appellant argued that the activity constituted a deemed sale, while the department contended it involved leasing goods. Citing previous decisions and analyzing the agreement's terms, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, aligning with the Chandigarh Bench's analysis and setting aside the original order.