2013 (11) TMI 398 - AT - Service Tax

Waiver of Pre-deposit - Appellants provide various services Held that - In the show cause notice certain figures have been taken from the profit and loss account of the appellants and demands have been made without any segregation of service-wise amounts of services provided for demanding duty Relying upon United Telecoms Ltd. vs. Commissioner, Service Tax, Hyderabad 2010 (10) TMI 730 - CESTAT, BANGALORE - In the absence of proposal in the show cause notice as to the liability of the assessee under the precise provision the demand cannot be held to be sustainable - appellants have made out a prima-facie case regarding non-chargeability of Service Tax Cargo Handling Services within the factory premises of M/s.TCL - Revenue has not brought out any evidence to the effect that man-power by numbers have been provided by the appellants to M/s. TCL to work under the supervision and control of M/s.TCL - The other contentions regarding manufacture of salt by appellants also need deeper considerations which can be done only at the time of final hearing stay granted.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Appellants providing Goods Transport Agency Service, Business Auxiliary Service, Cargo Handling Services, Management, Maintenance or Repair Services, and Supply of Tangible Goods Services to M/s. Tata Chemicals Ltd. Mithapur.

Analysis:
The appellants filed stay applications against the Order in Original passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Rajkot. The primary issue involved in these appeals/stay applications was whether the appellants, who were providing various services to M/s. Tata Chemicals Ltd., were liable to pay service tax. The appellants argued that they were engaged in salt manufacturing activities as per the pre-1986 definition of manufacture under the Central Excise Act, 1944, and therefore, no service tax was payable for the manufacturing activities. They also contended that certain activities, like salt lifting and transportation to M/s. TCL, were within the factory premises of M/s. TCL, hence no service tax should be charged for Cargo Handling Services. The appellants relied on specific judgments to support their arguments.

Regarding the demand raised on man-power supply and Recruitment Agency Services, the appellants argued that they had not supplied any manpower to M/s. TCL and there was no contract for such supply. They cited relevant case laws to support their stance. Additionally, the appellants disputed providing management, maintenance, repair services, and supply of tangible goods services to M/s. TCL. They highlighted that the Commissioner had not determined the specific service tax amounts for each service provided. The scope of work awarded to the appellants by M/s. TCL was presented to the bench, along with the bills raised by the appellants over M/s. TCL, detailing the nature of work done and charges recovered.

The Respondent argued that the appellants were not the manufacturers of salt as there was no lease or agreement between M/s. TCL and the appellants. The Respondent emphasized that there was no need to segregate service-wise value when the duty rates for all services were the same, justifying the demands and penalties imposed on the appellants.

After considering both sides and reviewing the records, the Tribunal observed that demands had been confirmed against the appellants for providing certain services. The Tribunal noted that the show cause notice lacked a precise proposal regarding the liability of the appellants under specific provisions, making the demand unsustainable. Citing relevant judgments, the Tribunal found a prima facie case for non-chargeability of Service Tax Cargo Handling Services within the factory premises of M/s. TCL. The Tribunal also noted the lack of evidence from the Revenue regarding the provision of manpower by the appellants to M/s. TCL. The Tribunal concluded that the appellants had made a case for a complete waiver of duties and penalties, granting a stay on recoveries until the disposal of the appeals.