9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (6) TMI 303 - AT - Service TaxLevy of Service Tax - Business Support Service - Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agency Service - Commercial Coaching Training Services - providing infrastructure facilities like computer systems, refreshments, lunch etc. to their corporate clients - supply of employees as per the requirement of their client - period April 2007 to March 2008 - time limitation - validity of SCN. HELD THAT - In the SCN dated 28.1.2008 in paras 4 to 7 along with Annexure-A to the SCN, the details of income received by the appellant and as to how these amounts would be subject to levy of service tax under the category of BSS and MRSS are explained. It is found that the argument of the appellant that SCN does not furnish required details for the appellant to rebut or defend the allegation is without any substance - The SCN cannot be too hyper-technical so as to make it highly confusing and too hard for an assessee to comprehend. When the details of the income (along with Annexure) which is subject to service tax is furnished in the SCN, and the category of services is also given along with its definition, the assessee should be sufficiently able to understand the allegations and defend the notice. The argument put forward by the Ld. Counsel that SCN is bereft of details and therefore appellant did not get reasonable opportunity to defend the case and therefore SCN is itself invalid, does not find favour. Business Support Service - HELD THAT - The argument put forward before us is that appellant has given the premises on rent along with its infrastructure facilities to NIIT. However, the appellant has not been able to establish this argument with supporting evidence in the nature of lease / licence deed or rent receipts. The said contention of the appellant is neither tenable nor acceptable. Thus the demand under BSS is sustained. Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service - HELD THAT - The very same issue was considered by the Tribunal in the appellant s own case and vide Final Order No.40679/2020 dated 03.03.2020 2020 (3) TMI 315 - CESTAT CHENNAI , the Tribunal has upheld the demand. The various clauses in the agreement executed between the appellant (BA) and M/s. WTI on the analysed and appreciated by the Tribunal. The Tribunal relied upon the decision in the case of M/s. Future Focus Infotech India (P) Ltd. Vs CST Chennai 2010 (3) TMI 190 - CESTAT, CHENNAI . It is submitted by the Ld. A.R that the appeal filed by the party before the Hon ble Apex Court against such decision has been dismissed as withdrawn. Following the decision of the Tribunal in the appellant s own case, it is held that the demand is legal and the same is sustained. Commercial Training or Coaching Services - HELD THAT - The appellant has received income from NIIT for imparting computer coaching services. It is not denied that appellant is a franchise of M/s.NIIT for providing such classes. The classes provided may be theory classes or practical training classes. The category of Commercial Coaching or Training Services covers the practical training classes also. There are no ground to set aside the demand under this category. Time Limitation - HELD THAT - It has to be pointed out that Business Associate Agreement entered between the appellant and M/s.WTI clearly shows that the employees are deputed to work for M/s.WTI and its clients and the consideration is paid on monthly basis. The terms agreed thereupon stipulate that employees deputed to WTI are not eligible for overtime charges. The conditions with regard to number of holidays that can be availed by the employees is also stipulated. When the agreement was so clear, the appellant ought to have discharged service tax under the MRSS. There are no ground to hold that SCN is barred by limitation. Appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the appellant is liable to pay service tax under "Business Support Services" (BSS). 2. Whether the appellant is liable to pay service tax under "Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service" (MRSS). 3. Whether the appellant is liable to pay service tax under "Commercial Training or Coaching Services" (CTCS). 4. Whether the demand raised invoking the extended period is sustainable. Summary: Issue 1: Business Support Services (BSS) The appellant provided infrastructure facilities like computer systems, refreshments, and lunch to corporate clients but did not discharge service tax under BSS. The appellant argued that they only rented classrooms for lectures and did not provide office infrastructure. However, the tribunal found that the appellant did not provide supporting evidence like lease agreements or rent receipts. Therefore, the demand under BSS is sustained. Issue 2: Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service (MRSS) The appellant was found to have provided employees to WTI Advance Technologies Ltd. under an agreement, which the department categorized under MRSS. The appellant contended that they provided consultancy services and not merely manpower supply. The tribunal referenced a prior decision in the appellant's own case, where it was held that the nature of the contract was for the supply of manpower, and the consideration was paid based on man-hours. The tribunal upheld the demand under MRSS, following the precedent set in the appellant's previous case. Issue 3: Commercial Training or Coaching Services (CTCS) The appellant received income from NIIT for conducting computer training courses. The tribunal noted that the appellant, being a franchise of NIIT, provided both theory and practical training classes, which fall under CTCS. Therefore, the demand under CTCS is sustained. Issue 4: Extended Period of Limitation The appellant argued that the issue involved interpretation of law and different views by the tribunal, thus the extended period for raising the demand should not apply. However, the tribunal found that the Business Associate Agreement clearly indicated the nature of services provided, and the appellant should have discharged service tax accordingly. The tribunal did not find grounds to hold the show cause notice barred by limitation. Conclusion: The tribunal sustained the impugned orders and dismissed the appeals, confirming the demands under BSS, MRSS, and CTCS, and upheld the invocation of the extended period for raising the demand.
|
