Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2012 (6) TMI 524

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . The department's allegation is that during the period from 2006-2007 to 2007-2008, they availed the taxable services of manpower supply from their holding company, M/s. Bain & Company, Boston, USA inasmuch as during this period M/s. Bain & Company, Boston. USA deputed some of their staff to 'their subsidiary in India, for which the appellant made payment in foreign exchange. According to the Department, the service tax payable by the appellant as service recipient on the amount paid to their holding company for the manpower supply was Rs. 1,56,85,563/-. Besides this, it was also found that the appellant had received Business Auxiliary Services from their holding company on which service tax chargeable was Rs.4,20,013/-. It is also alleged .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... count of alleged receipt of manpower supply from the holding company - M/s. Bain & Company , USA, that there is no supply of manpower from the holding company and as such, no service of manpower supply, as defined under Section 65(68) of the Finance Act, 1994, has been received by the appellant, that during the period of dispute, some of the persons employed in the holding company had been deputed to appellant-company and were working for the appellant as their employees, that their salaries and P.F. Contribution were being paid by the appellant to the holding company as per the law, in this regard in USA, that the persons, in question, working for the appellants during the period of dispute were working as their employees and not as employ .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... appeal and recovery thereof be stayed during the pendency of the appeal. 4. Shri Sunil Kumar, the learned Senior Departmental Representative, opposed the appellant's plea for waiver from the requirement of pre-deposit by reiterating the Commissioner (Appeals)'s findings in the impugned order and emphasized that the appellant during the period of dispute had received the services of manpower supply, as defined under Section 65 (68) of the Finance Act, 1994, from their holding company and that the persons deputed by the holding company were the employees of the holding company for which the payment had been made by the appellant in foreign exchange, he, therefore, pleaded that this is not a case for waiver from the requirement of pre-deposi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ment or manpower supply agency in para 22.2 of the Circular No.BI/6/2005-TRU dated 27.07.2005, paras 22.1 to 22.4 are reproduced below:- "22.1 Prior to 16.06.2005, service tax was leviable on services provided by manpower recruitment agencies in relation to recruitment of manpower. Amendments have been made to levy service tax on temporary supply of manpower by manpower recruitment or supply agencies. 22.2 A large number of business or industrial organizations engaged the services of commercial concerns for temporary supply of manpower which is engaged for a specified period or for completion of particular projects or tasks. Services rendered by commercial concerns for supply of such manpower to clients would be covered within the purview .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y their P.F. Contribution in foreign exchange was being remitted to the holding company as they were earlier working for the holding company. 7. We, therefore, are of the prima facie view that the persons, who are alleged to have been supplied by the holding company to the appellant can not be said to be the employees of the holding company. Moreover, other than P.F. Contribution no other payment for the persons, in question, was being made by the appellant to the holding company. In view of this, we are of the prima facie view that no services of "manpower recruitment or supply agency" as defined under Section 65(68) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 65(105)(k) has been received by the appellant from their holding company and as .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates