2010 (3) TMI 328 - AT - Service Tax

Taxable Services Classification Section 65A manner of classification recruitment and manpower supply service versus information technology service - Department s case against the appellants is primarily based on the fact that the appellants have recruited the entire staff only on the basis of requirement of Pfizer. - Held that appellants that the work force recruited and retained by the appellants are required to work under a project manager appointed by the appellants who has to act as single point of contact being responsible for overall management of the project. - It has to be appreciated that recruitment and training precedes provision of specialized services. - If it is accepted that the same manpower will be providing specialized functional services to Pfizer in the second phase of the contract, it is logical to conclude that the manpower has been retained with the appellants during the first phase and not supplied to Pfizer though recruitment of manpower has no doubt been done at the instance of Pfizer. - The assistance in recruitment and imparting of specialized training for the recruited personnel cannot be held against the appellants claim that they have not supplied the manpower but have merely recruited and retained the same for providing specialized services to Pfizer utilizing such manpower. - the nature of services required to be provided by the appellants are in the nature of information technology services as the same relates to data management.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of the services provided by the appellant under "Consulting Engineer" or "Manpower Supply".
2. Applicability of Service Tax on the services provided.
3. Eligibility for small-scale exemption for services provided to SAP Labs India Pvt. Ltd.
4. Penalties imposed under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of the Services Provided by the Appellant:
The primary issue was whether the services provided by the appellant to Pfizer should be classified under "Consulting Engineer" or "Manpower Supply". The appellant argued that the services rendered were in the nature of "information technology services" and not mere manpower supply. The agreement between the appellant and Pfizer outlined that the appellant would provide biometric services, including Clinical Programming and Writing (CPW) and Global Clinical Data Services (GCDS). The appellant was responsible for project management, quality assurance, and delivering specific services as per the agreement. The work order specified the nature and scope of services, timelines, and payment schedules. The appellant contended that the contract was for the provision of services and not for the supply of manpower.

The Department argued that the appellant's role was confined to recruiting and supplying manpower to Pfizer, as the work order specified the number of staff required and their functional descriptions. The Department highlighted that Pfizer provided hardware, software, and functional supervision, indicating that the appellant was merely supplying manpower.

The Tribunal found that the workforce recruited and retained by the appellant worked under the appellant's project manager and provided specialized services to Pfizer. The Tribunal concluded that the services provided were in the nature of information technology services and not mere manpower supply.

2. Applicability of Service Tax:
The appellant argued that the services provided to Pfizer were exempt from Service Tax as they fell under "information technology services," which were excluded from the Service Tax levy at the material time. The Department contended that the services were taxable under "manpower recruitment or supply agency" services.

The Tribunal held that the services provided by the appellant were information technology services related to data management, bio-statistics, and reporting. Consequently, the appellant was not liable to pay Service Tax for the services provided to Pfizer.

3. Eligibility for Small-Scale Exemption:
The appellant claimed that if the services provided to Pfizer were accepted as exempt, the small amount received for providing "commercial training service" to SAP Labs India Pvt. Ltd. would come under the value limit of Rs. 4 lakhs, making them eligible for small-scale exemption.

The Tribunal accepted the appellant's argument and held that they were eligible for the small-scale exemption, as the value of services provided to SAP Labs India Pvt. Ltd. was below the exemption limit.

4. Penalties Imposed Under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994:
The appellant argued that there was no intention to evade tax, and they were under the bona fide belief that the services provided did not attract Service Tax. The Department contended that the appellant, being a hi-tech corporate, should have known that the services rendered amounted to manpower supply and were taxable.

The Tribunal did not specifically address the penalties in its final decision, as it concluded that the services provided were exempt from Service Tax. Therefore, the penalties imposed under Sections 76 and 78 were not applicable.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, concluding that the services provided by the appellant to Pfizer were in the nature of information technology services and not manpower supply. Consequently, the appellant was not liable to pay Service Tax for these services and was eligible for the small-scale exemption for services provided to SAP Labs India Pvt. Ltd.