9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Classification of services provided by the appellant - Ship management service or management consultancy service. Analysis: The appellant, engaged in providing manpower for vessels, argued that their services should be classified as ship management service, not management consultancy service. They contended that they supplied officers and crew for shipboard duties, which did not involve advice or consultancy as per the definition of a management consultant. The department initially treated them as a manpower recruitment agency for service tax purposes. However, a later show cause notice claimed their service was akin to management consultancy. The appellant emphasized that their services were related to ship management, not consultancy, and highlighted the distinction between the two. The Department's stance was that the appellant's activities, as outlined in their agreement, fell under management consultancy services. They argued that the organization in question was the shipping company, not the ship itself, and that the appellant's services were in line with management activities detailed in the agreement. The department acknowledged the initial misclassification as a manpower recruitment agency but later corrected it to management consultancy services. The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's argument that they did not provide services qualifying as advice, technical assistance, or consultancy as required for classification as a management consultant. However, since the appellant's services were related to management activities, the Tribunal directed them to deposit a specified amount towards service tax. The Tribunal did not grant a full waiver but allowed for the balance amount and penalty to be waived upon the initial deposit. The recovery of the waived amount was stayed pending the appeal's disposal. Compliance was set for a specific date following the order's pronouncement.
|
