2018 (6) TMI 664 - AT - Service Tax

Demand of service tax - services of Supply of Manpower - Works Contract service - Supply of Tangible Goods service - Rent -a-Cab Service. Manpower Supply Service - Held that - The demand to the extent it has been made on specific work undertaken by the appellant even though with the help of labour would not fall under the category of Manpower Supply Service as the Appellant had performed specific job and did not supply labour only. Supply of Tangible goods services - Held that - The appellant has not provided goods but has performed specific jobs - since the appellant has not supplied any machinery equipments or appliance for use, therefore the services are not taxable under the category of Supply of Tangible Goods Service. In case of Works Contract Service we find that the demand has not been contested and thus we hold that the demand under Works Contract category is sustainable. The appellant would be allowed the benefit of cum-tax calculation while computing the demands - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Issues involved:
- Discrepancy in service tax payment declarations
- Allegations of taxable services provided
- Demand for service tax and penalties
- Exemption claims for certain services
- Dispute over nature of services provided
- Applicability of service tax on specific activities
- Denial of cum tax value benefit
- Time bar for demands
- Option for reduced penalty

Detailed Analysis:

1. Discrepancy in service tax payment declarations:
The appeals were filed by both the appellant and the revenue against the OIA passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding a significant difference between the amounts declared in the ST-3 return and the actual payments received by the appellant from service recipients. Allegations were made regarding the provision of taxable services like supply of labor, renting passenger vehicles, leasing tractors, and construction work.

2. Exemption claims for certain services:
The appellant contested the demand for service tax on the grounds that services provided to specific customers were exempt or not covered under taxable categories. For instance, services provided to an agricultural customer were claimed to be exempted, and activities like construction of cow sheds and maintenance were argued not to fall under taxable categories.

3. Nature of services provided and tax applicability:
The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand for certain services like Works Contract Service and Manpower Supply Service, stating that the nature of the service provided by the appellant did not exempt them from service tax liabilities. The appellant's claims regarding the specific nature of work performed were not considered due to lack of evidence.

4. Denial of cum tax value benefit:
The appellant's request for considering the value as cum tax was denied by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the grounds that the gross amount charged did not include service tax. The benefit of cum tax value was not extended due to the appellant's failure to establish the same.

5. Time bar for demands and reduced penalty option:
The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the demands were not time-barred as the appellant was aware of their service tax liabilities. However, an option for a reduced penalty of 25% was provided if the demand and interest were paid within 30 days of the Order-in-Appeal.

6. Appellate Tribunal's decision:
Upon hearing both sides, the Appellate Tribunal found that certain services provided by the appellant were not correctly categorized under taxable services like Manpower Supply Service and Rent-a-Cab service. The Tribunal set aside the demand under Rent-a-Cab service and Supply of Tangible Goods Service, remanded the Manpower Supply Service demand for reevaluation, and upheld the demand under Works Contract Service.

7. Benefit of cum-tax calculation and remand:
The appellant was granted the benefit of cum-tax calculation for the revised demands. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the adjudicating authority for reevaluation. The revenue appeal was disposed of accordingly for further determination of tax and penalties.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision provided clarity on the tax liabilities of the appellant, granting relief in certain areas while upholding demands in others, ensuring a fair and thorough evaluation of the issues at hand.

← Previous Next →