9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 111X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 41,95,265/- for the period from November 2014 to March 2016 and demand of Rs.2,35,06,488/- for the period from April 2016 to June 2017. The issue involved in both the appeals is identical and therefore, both the appeals are taken up together for discussion and disposal. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are registered under Service Tax registration under Section 69 of the Finance Act, 1994 for providing/ receiving various services under the provisions of Finance Act, 1994. The appellant is a subsidiary of Lindstrom OY Finland and is engaged in leasing work-wear to their clients on the conditions mentioned in the agreements with their clients. During the financial year 2013-14, Service Tax Audit of Chennai Bra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its that this issue is no more res integra and various Benches of the Tribunal in the appellant‟s own case for the earlier period has allowed the appeal of the appellant/ assessee. She further submits that the Revenue has filed appeal before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed and consequently, the issue stands finally settled in favour of the appellant. She further submits that the various Benches of the Tribunal, after considering the facts of the case and also various clauses of the agreement between the appellants and its customers, has come to the conclusion that the transaction between the appellant and its customers is not amenable to service tax and this issue has been finally settled in favour o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant‟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 the agreement has been briefly incorporated in the order in original which is as under:- "The terms and conditions of the agreement are as follows:- a. The assessee will only lease the work ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 the detail discussion of the issue since the same has been already analysed by the Chandigarh Bench. 9. Following the said decision, we are of the considered opin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
