9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 71X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... where it was held that work wear does not amount to supply of tangible goods so as to attract service tax. The demand raised cannot sustain and requires to be set aside - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eemed sale' and that they are discharging VAT on the value received. Show Cause Notice was issued for different period proposing to demand service tax along with interest and for imposing penalty. The Tribunal in the appellant's own case had analysed the very same issue for the period 2010 - 11 to 2014 - 15 and held that the activity of workwear on rental does not amount to supply of tangible goods so as to attract the levy of service tax. The period involved in the present case is from 2015 - 16, 2016 - 17 and April 2017 to June 2017. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel that in the activity carried out by the appellant, the right of possession of garments is fully transferred to the client and goods are under effective control of the cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as been analyzed by this Tribunal in the appellant's own case for a different period. The Tribunal in the said order followed the decision rendered by the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in the appellant's own case. It is also noted in paragraph 8 of the said order that Commissioner (Appeals), Hyderabad vide Order in Appeal dated 26.12.2017 has also held that renting of workwear does not amount to supply of tangible goods / services to attract levy of service tax. The relevant paragraphs of the above said final order is reproduced as under:- 6. The issue that arises for consideration is whether the activity of work wear rental falls under the category of supply of tangible goods so as to attract service tax. The terms and conditions of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r clients and nobody else can use those work wear at the same time and hence effective control to lie with the user / clients. The appellant, therefore, does not have control over the use of the work-wear. Thus the activity is not in the nature of 'service' under the Finance Act in both during the period prior to negative list regime and thereafter as held in the impugned order. The order under challenge is therefore not sustainable" 8. Further, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal dated 26.12.2017 of Hyderabad Commissionerate has also held in the appellant's own case that work wear does not amount to supply of tangible goods so as to attract service tax. From the decisions cited above, we think it is not necessary to take up t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
