Tribunal grants waiver for Service Tax, interest, and penalties in Man Power Service supply case

The Tribunal allowed the appellant's application for waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax, interest, and penalties amounting to Rs.51,52,422/- under the Finance Act, 1994 related to Man Power Service supply to dairies. The Tribunal found that the appellant had established a prima facie case on merits as contracts with dairies were for specific jobs, not solely for manpower supply. Relying on previous decisions in similar cases, the Tribunal granted the waiver and stayed the recovery until the appeal's disposal.

---

---

Issues:
Waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax, interest, and penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 based on the supply of Man Power Service to dairies.

Analysis:
The appellant filed a Stay Petition seeking waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax, interest, and penalties amounting to Rs.51,52,422/- under the Finance Act, 1994. The amounts were confirmed due to the alleged non-discharge of Service Tax liability on the Man Power Supply Service provided to various dairies. The appellant contended that the contracts with the dairies were lump-sum contracts based on the quantum of work awarded, not specifically for the supply of manpower. The adjudicating authority initially dropped the proceedings, but the first appellate authority reversed this decision, relying on previous decisions. The appellant argued that the decisions cited by the first appellate authority were factually distinguishable and referenced cases decided by the Tribunal which favored the appellants, including Ritesh Enterprises, Divya Enterprise, and K. Damodar Reddy.

The Tribunal, after considering the submissions, noted that the appellant was awarded contracts by the dairies for specific jobs, as evidenced by the contract attached to the appeal memorandum. In light of this, the Tribunal referred to its previous decisions in the cases of Ritesh Enterprises, Divya Enterprise, and K. Damodar Reddy, where the issue was decided in favor of the appellants. The Tribunal, having been a member of the judgments in those cases, found that the appellant had established a prima facie case on merits. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the application for waiver of pre-deposit of the amounts involved and stayed the recovery until the appeal's disposal. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in court by the Tribunal.

---