2014 (8) TMI 581 - AT - Service Tax

Waiver of pre deposit - movement of goods from railway sliding within the factory premises to the place of storage within the same premises - Cargo handling service or not - Assessee paying tax under Manpower supply - Held that - The impugned order nowhere discloses about the scope of work embodied in the work order. The authority tried to make effort in para 10 of the order but has also not demonstrated the case of the Revenue with sound reason. When the authority passed the order on 16-10-2010 by that time, decision of the Tribunal in the aforesaid two cases were available before him. But he has not at all looked into those decisions - Prima facie, we are satisfied that balance of convenience is in favour of the assessee. - stay granted - matter remanded back for appreciation of facts.

Summary

Issues involved: Scope of work for service tax liability, applicability of case laws, requirement of pre-deposit for appeal hearing.

Analysis:

1. Scope of work for service tax liability:
The appellant argued that the scope of work involved moving goods within the factory premises, which, according to precedents like CCE, Ranchi v. Modi Construction Company and CCE, Jaipur v. Kumar Engg. & Contractors, should not attract service tax as "Cargo Handling Agent." Additionally, the appellant contended that since the entry for "Manpower supply" was not in the statute book at the relevant time, they should not be held liable under that category either. The appellant highlighted that they were already paying service tax as a "Manpower supply Agency" post the entry's incorporation. The Tribunal noted the lack of clarity in the impugned order regarding the scope of work and remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for a detailed examination based on the contract terms.

2. Applicability of case laws:
The Tribunal observed that the impugned order did not adequately address the appellant's arguments in light of relevant case laws such as CCE, Ranchi v. Modi Construction Company and CCE, Jaipur v. Kumar Engg. & Contractors. The Tribunal expressed dissatisfaction with the authority's failure to consider these precedents while passing the order. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of examining the scope of work based on the law and the appellant's submissions to ensure a fair and reasoned decision.

3. Requirement of pre-deposit for appeal hearing:
Considering the balance of convenience in favor of the assessee, the Tribunal decided to waive the requirement of pre-deposit for the appeal hearing. The Tribunal directed the Adjudicating Authority to provide a fair opportunity for the appellant to present their case, consider all arguments and legal points raised, and issue a detailed and well-reasoned order after examining the scope of work thoroughly. The Tribunal expected the authority to delve into the contractual details and legal aspects of the case extensively.

In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of both the stay application and the appeal by remanding the matter for a comprehensive examination of the scope of work and legal implications, emphasizing the need for a reasoned decision based on thorough analysis and consideration of all relevant factors.