2023 (12) TMI 1345 - AT - Service Tax

Classification of service - packing cement and loading the same in the wagons and in the trucks - to be classified as Manpower Services or as Cargo Handling Services? - extended period of limitation - suppression of facts or not. Classification of service - HELD THAT - The Appellant has been given a contract for packing loading unloading of the cement bags for which they were providing manpower services. On an identical issue in the case of CCE Bhopal Vs. Jagat Enterprises 2015 (11) TMI 970 - CESTAT NEW DELHI the Hon ble Delhi Tribunal has held that the Revenue has not given any reason as to why the impugned services were classifiable under Cargo Handling Services before 16-6-2005 and as manpower recruitment from 16-6-2005. The admitted fact is that the services remain same and there is no reason for different service tax treatment for different period. Considering the detailed discussions and findings in the impugned order we find no reason to interfere with the same. The facts in the present case are identical. Therefore there are no necessity to take a different view - the Appeals allowed on merits. Extended period of limitation - suppression of facts or not - HELD THAT - First of all in the first SCN no specific about suppression has been brought in by the Department. Further while issuing the second SCN the Department was barred from invoking the extended period provisions when they have already issued the first Show Cause Notice by invoking such provisions as held by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory Vs. Collector of Central Excise 2006 (4) TMI 127 - SUPREME COURT . Therefore the demand in respect of the extended period in respect of the both SCNs is time barred and the same is set aside. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the Appellants were providing "Cargo Handling Services" and liable for service tax.
2. Whether the Show Cause Notice issued beyond the normal period of limitation was valid.
3. Whether the extended period provisions invoked by the Department for confirming the demand were justified.
4. Whether the Appellant's services fell under "Cargo Handling Services" as per relevant case laws.
5. Whether the demands made by the Department were time-barred.

Analysis:
1. The Appellants received a Work Order for packing and loading cement bags, providing only manpower services. The Department alleged they were providing "Cargo Handling Services" without discharging service tax. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demands, leading to the Appellant's appeal before the Tribunal.

2. The Appellant argued that the first Show Cause Notice was time-barred as it was issued beyond the normal limitation period. They contended proper registration with the Service Tax Department and timely filing of returns.

3. Regarding the extended period provisions invoked by the Department for the demands, the Appellant cited a case law prohibiting the repeated use of extended periods for the same issue. They urged the Tribunal to allow the Appeals on merit and due to the time bar.

4. The Tribunal analyzed the Work Order and observed that the Appellant's services involved supervising and supporting mechanized packing and loading, not manual handling. Citing precedents, the Tribunal held that the services did not classify under "Cargo Handling Services" for the relevant period.

5. The Tribunal found that the Department failed to justify the demands within the extended period, as no suppression was proven. Referring to a Supreme Court case, the Tribunal ruled the demands for the extended period were time-barred and set them aside, allowing the Appeals and granting the Appellant consequential relief.

This detailed analysis of the judgment covers the issues raised, the arguments presented, and the Tribunal's findings, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of the legal aspects involved in the case.