9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 394X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 837HSD002 for payment of Service tax under the categories of 'Goods Transport Agency' and 'Business Auxiliary Service'. The appellant manufactures both for self and also on job work basis - contract bottling. 2. On the basis of the audit of records maintained by the Appellant, a Show Cause Notice in O.R. No. 207/2011- Adjn (Commr) ST dated 21.10.2011 was issued to the appellant by invoking the extended period of limitation and proposing to demand Service tax of Rs.1,05,54,037/- (Rs.88,69,793/- under the category of Manpower Recruitment Agency Service and Rs.16,90,769/- under Renting of Immovable Property services) for the period April 2006 to August 2009. The notice also proposed to demand interest and also to impose penalties. 3. The abo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith CML manufacture procure RS/ENA in accordance with standards and specifications set forth in the Annexure 5 and from suppliers approved by CML and in accordance with the standards and specifications setforth in Annexure B. Any change in such specifications/standards shall be in accordance with statutory requirements and/or mutually acceptable terms. The IMFL so manufactured shall be blended and bottled by BAGGA in its blending and bottling plant in accordance with the specifications laid down by CML from time to time in advance. The enable BAGGA to comply with the same, BAGGA shall register the labels to be affixed on the IMFL with the excise authorities in the State of Andhra Pradesh and obtain such permission/approvals from such compet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to be a part of this Agreement." 7. In view of the above clauses, the Ld. Advocate submits that, the Appellant is responsible for the manufacture/producing IMFL under the brands belonging to the CML in their own distillery, using their own manpower, skilled or un-skilled required for the manufacture of IMFL The IMFL so manufactured/produced shall be sold to CML or to the buyers specified by CML. The Appellant is paid at an agreed price on per case basis, of each category of the IMFL manufactured, as per clause 13(a) of the Manufacturing Agreement. The Commissioner in the impugned order has, thus erred to construe the manufacturing agreement as an agreement for manpower supply agreement. By no stretch of imagination the activity of servi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e) Ritesh Enterprises Vs. CCE, Bangalore [2010 (18) S.T.R. 17 (Tri.- Bang.)] 10. With respect to the demand of renting of immovable property service, it is the contention of the appellant that the non-payment of Service tax was on account of the issue of 'renting of immovable property' was mired with controversies across the nation with several cases being filed in various High Court, until the issue is finally decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. During the material period, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of M/s. Home Solution Retail India Ltd., Vs. Union of India - 2009 (14) S.T.R. 433 (Del.) has held that levy of Service Tax on 'Renting of Immovable Properties' is bad and not liable to Service Tax. The doubt regarding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case where the manpower is employed on behalf of the other party for performing a job agreed upon. 12. On The issue of limitation submits that from the facts on record there is deliberate act on the part of appellant with the clear intent to evade payment of service tax which also cannot be attributed to entertaining of any doubt whether the services are taxable or not. The fact of rendering the services in question came to light of the Department only when the documents were called for verification. 13. Heard the parties. The demands in the instant case is two-fold, i.e., whether the appellant was providing manpower recruitment and supply agency services falling under Section 65 (105)(k) of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994, as amended ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, as held. 15. With respect to the demand of the renting of immovable property during the period 2008-2009, we agree with the Appellant that during the relevant period, the issue was disputed before various High Courts and finally ended up before the Supreme Court. Finally, the issue was put to rest by way of a retrospective amendment. This, itself, shows that there was lot of confusion on levy of tax on renting of immovable property service during the material period involved in this case. The normal period of limitation for the raising demand for non-payment of service tax as per Section 73 of the Finance Act during the impugned period is one year from the relevant date. The demand in this case is for the period from 01.04.2008 to 31.03 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
