9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (8) TMI 898 - AT - Service TaxClassification of services - appellants were performing certain tasks in the factory of TATA mainly in processing of coffee beans - Department took the view that appellants were providing Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service falling within the scope of Section 65 (68) of the Finance Act, 1994 and the taxable service thereof defined in Section 65 (105) (k) - time limitation. Held that - In the facts of appeal at hand, it is clear from the agreements and communication between the appellants and its service recipient that although there was indeed use of manpower, however that was only for the purpose of actualizing the work contracted to the appellant. This manpower was at all times under the control and superintendence of the appellants. The consideration for the work contracted was dependent upon the extent of work completed or executed and not on the basis of number of manpower supplied. It was surmised that the activity related to maintenance service rendered by them. There is no allegation whatsoever of appellants having rendered manpower recruitment or supply of agency service. The audit notes further suggest examination as to whether appellants are within the threshold exemption limit allowed to small service providers etc. It is also seen from records that at the instance of the department, TATA vide their letter dt. 30.5.2008 to the Superintendent of Central Excise, Theni Range submitted copies of statement of accounts for 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08. The service rendered by the appellants are not in the nature of Manpower Recruitment of Supply Agency Service‟ - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Classification of services provided by the appellants. 2. Applicability of service tax under 'Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service'. 3. Validity of the demand and penalties imposed. 4. Invocation of the extended period of limitation. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Classification of Services Provided by the Appellants: The appellants were registered under 'Cargo Handling Service' but were performing tasks in TATA Coffee Ltd.’s factory, primarily processing coffee beans. The Department viewed these tasks as 'Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service' under Section 65 (68) and taxable under Section 65 (105) (k) of the Finance Act, 1994. Various contracts and agreements indicated that the appellants were engaged in specific activities like processing coffee beans, packing, and maintaining the Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP), with payment based on the quantity of work done rather than the supply of manpower. The appellants argued that their work was task-oriented and not manpower supply. 2. Applicability of Service Tax under 'Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service': The definition of 'Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service' has evolved, but it essentially involves the supply of manpower to work under the client’s control. The appellants contended that their services did not fall under this category as they were paid for the work executed, not for the manpower supplied. Previous decisions, such as Indira Industrial Labour Welfare Association Vs. CCE & ST, Chennai and others, supported the appellants' view that task-oriented contracts do not constitute manpower supply services. 3. Validity of the Demand and Penalties Imposed: The Commissioner upheld the demand of ?61,40,412/- towards service tax for June 2005 to March 2010, with interest and penalties under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, but dropped the penalty under Section 76. The appellants argued that they had applied for registration under both 'Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service' and 'Cargo Handling Service' in 2006, but the department only issued registration for the latter. They believed they were not liable for tax under 'Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service'. The Tribunal found that the appellants' services were not in the nature of 'Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service' and thus, the demand and penalties were not sustainable. 4. Invocation of the Extended Period of Limitation: The appellants contended that the extended period of limitation was not applicable as they had a bona fide belief of not being liable for the tax under the disputed category. The Tribunal noted that the issue involved classification and interpretation, which had led to various favorable decisions for the appellants. Hence, the invocation of the extended period and the imposition of penalties were deemed unsustainable. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the services rendered by the appellants were not 'Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service' but were task-oriented contracts. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief as per law. Operative Part: The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief as per law.
|
