2010 (10) TMI 492 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal denies stay application on demand confirmation under Finance Act, 1994

CHARANJEET SINGH Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., LUCKNOW

The Tribunal denied the appellant's stay application against the demand confirmation of Rs. 3,85,996/- with interest and penalties under the Finance Act, ... Manpower recruitment and supply agency - The appellant had ensured the manpower supply services for carrying out various services in terms of said agreement - As per the conditions of the agreement clearly disclose that the appellants have to ensure due supply of number of workers to insure the production and despatch of the products - The contention of applicability of SSI exemption, the impugned order as well as order passed by the adjudicating authority nowhere disclose any reference to any such ground having been raised before either of the lower authorities - There was no specific statement of the fact which could disclose the quantum of turnover for the previous year of the appellants - In order to justify the claim for exemption under the Notification No. 6/05-S.T., it is necessary to ascertain the quantum of turnover for the previous year - Direct the appellants to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/ - The requirement of pre-deposit of rest of demand under the impugned order including the demand relating to interest and penalty waived. Issues Involved:1. Stay application against order for demand confirmation, interest, and penalties under various sections of the Finance Act, 1994.2. Interpretation of services as manpower recruitment and supply agency for tax levy.3. Analysis of turnover for exemption under Notification No. 6/05-S.T.4. Consideration of documentary evidence for quantifying total taxable service amount.5. Failure to appear before the adjudicating authority and raise specific grounds for exemption.6. Direction for deposit amount and compliance reporting date.Issue 1: Stay Application and Demand Confirmation:The appellant sought a stay against the order confirming a demand of Rs. 3,85,996/- along with interest and penalties under different sections of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant argued that the work done did not constitute manpower services and turnover did not exceed the limits for exemption. The Tribunal noted the appellant's reliance on a previous case but the Departmental Representative contended that the services fell under manpower recruitment and supply agency. The Tribunal found that the agreement indicated the appellant provided manpower services, rejecting the appellant's contentions.Issue 2: Interpretation of Services as Manpower Recruitment:The authorities analyzed the agreement and concluded that the appellant's services fell under the category of manpower recruitment and supply agency, subject to taxation. The appellant's obligation to ensure worker supply for production indicated the nature of services provided, leading to a rejection of the appellant's argument against this categorization.Issue 3: Turnover Analysis for Exemption under Notification No. 6/05-S.T.:The appellant claimed exemption under Notification No. 6/05-S.T. based on turnover but failed to provide sufficient evidence or raise specific grounds before the lower authorities. The Tribunal found no fault in the lower authorities' decision not to consider the exemption claim due to the lack of factual foundation or supporting evidence from the appellant.Issue 4: Documentary Evidence for Quantifying Taxable Service Amount:The appellant's attempt to challenge the quantification of taxable service amount was deemed insufficient as no proper explanation or documentary evidence was presented to support the claim. The Tribunal highlighted the lack of detailed information or verification regarding the turnover, leading to a dismissal of the appellant's argument in this regard.Issue 5: Failure to Raise Specific Grounds for Exemption:The appellant's failure to appear before the adjudicating authority and raise specific grounds for exemption, especially regarding the SSI exemption, was noted. The Tribunal found that the appellant did not provide adequate details or factual foundation to support the claim for exemption, leading to a rejection of this argument.Issue 6: Direction for Deposit Amount and Compliance Reporting Date:Considering the case's circumstances, the Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit Rs. 1,80,000/- within 8 weeks, waiving the pre-deposit requirement for the remaining demand, interest, and penalties. The compliance reporting date was set for 4-1-2011.This detailed analysis of the judgment covers the issues related to the stay application, interpretation of services, turnover analysis, documentary evidence, failure to raise specific grounds, and the direction for deposit amount and compliance reporting date.