9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (2) TMI 322 - AT - Service TaxManpower recruitment or supply agency services - the appellant had placed services of well qualified engineers and professional to cater to their operational needs of their associated groups like BALCO MALCO, HEZ etc. - Department took the view that such activity would come within the ambit of manpower recruitment or supply agency services - Held that - the issue has been decided in the case of Spirax Marshall P. Ltd., Forbes Marshall P. Ltd. & J.N. Marshall P. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune I 2015 (11) TMI 978 - CESTAT MUMBAI , where it was held that There is no element of profit or finance benefit. The subsidiary companies cannot be said to be their clients. Deputation of the employees was only for and in the interest of the company. There was no relation of agency and client. Demand set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Amendment of cause title from M/s. Sterlite Industries India Ltd. to M/s. Vedanta Ltd. 2. Tax liability on services provided by deputed employees to associated groups. 3. Interpretation of the definition of manpower recruitment or supply agency services. 4. Applicability of previous judgments on similar issues. 5. Appeal against the impugned order confirming tax liability and penalties. Issue 1: Amendment of Cause Title The appellant filed a miscellaneous application seeking to amend the cause title from M/s. Sterlite Industries India Ltd. to M/s. Vedanta Ltd. The tribunal allowed the application after hearing both sides, amending the cause title to reflect the correct name of the appellant as M/s. Vedanta Limited. Issue 2: Tax Liability on Services Provided by Deputed Employees The dispute arose when the department noticed that the appellant had placed qualified engineers and professionals to cater to operational needs of associated groups, recovering remuneration from these deputed employees. The department viewed this as falling under manpower recruitment or supply agency services, proposing a service tax liability of ?30,88,38,172/- for the period 2005-06 to 2008-09. The adjudicating authority confirmed the tax liability and imposed penalties, leading to the appeal. Issue 3: Interpretation of the Definition of Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Services The appellant argued that they were not a manpower recruitment or supply agency but were deputing their own personnel to group companies. They relied on various case laws to support their position, emphasizing that the deputation of employees did not constitute manpower recruitment or supply agency services. The tribunal analyzed the issue in detail, referencing previous judgments and holding in favor of the appellants based on the interpretation of the relevant legal provisions. Issue 4: Applicability of Previous Judgments The appellant cited several case laws where similar issues were decided in their favor, indicating that the issue was not res integra. The tribunal considered these precedents, including decisions related to manpower recruitment or supply agency services, and found that the issue was settled in favor of the appellants. The department's appeals to the Supreme Court were dismissed, reinforcing the validity of the previous judgments. Issue 5: Appeal Against the Impugned Order After hearing both sides and examining the records, the tribunal concluded that the issue in dispute was covered in favor of the appellants based on the judgments cited. Following the established legal principles and the settled position on similar matters, the tribunal set aside the impugned order confirming tax liability and penalties, allowing the appeal with consequential relief as per law. The miscellaneous application was also disposed of in the same judgment.
|
