CESTAT Bangalore: Appellant's transport of slurry qualifies as supply of tangible goods

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore ruled in favor of the appellant in a case concerning a demand for service tax for providing cleaning services. The Tribunal determined that the appellant's work primarily involved transporting slurry, qualifying as a supply of tangible goods rather than cleaning services. As the appellant had rectified their registration to reflect this change and evidence supported their claim, the Tribunal waived the pre-deposit requirement, granted a stay against recovery, and classified the service as a supply of tangible goods, benefiting from limitation.

---

---

Issues:
Demand for service tax on the appellant for providing cleaning services, Penalty imposition under various sections of Finance Act 1994, Interpretation of the nature of services provided by the appellant, Consideration of evidence and submissions by both parties, Determination of whether the service provided qualifies as supply of tangible goods, Decision on pre-deposit requirement for hearing the appeal.

Analysis:

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore pertains to a case where a demand for service tax amounting to Rs. 12,35,740 for the period from 16/06/2005 to 15/05/2008 was confirmed against the appellant. The basis for this demand was that the appellant was allegedly providing cleaning services to the service receivers during the mentioned period. Additionally, penalties under various sections of the Finance Act 1994 were imposed on the appellant.

The appellant, represented by a Chartered Accountant, contested the claim of providing cleaning services. It was argued that the appellant's work primarily involved shifting slurry from a settling tank to a disposal yard using hired vehicles, as indicated in the Purchase Order. Despite the scope of work mentioning housekeeping and cleaning, it was clarified that the payment was based on the number of vehicles used for slurry transportation. The appellant rectified a registration mistake, initially applying under Business Auxiliary Service and later correcting it to 'supply of tangible goods' from 16/05/2008 onwards. A certificate from the service receiver supported the claim that no other services besides slurry transportation were provided.

On the contrary, the Department contended that the appellant was obligated to provide cleaning and housekeeping services in various areas, as per the records. The Department justified the demand based on these obligations outlined in the records.

After considering the arguments from both sides, the Tribunal noted that the payment received by the appellant was linked to the number of vehicles used for slurry transportation, indicating a supply of tangible goods rather than cleaning services. The invoices labeled the service as cleaning, but the actual nature of work was transporting slurry. The appellant had been paying service tax under the category of 'supply of tangible goods' since 16/05/2008, further supporting the reclassification of services.

Consequently, the Tribunal found that the appellant's service qualified as supply of tangible goods, and the appellant was granted the benefit of limitation. As a result, the pre-deposit requirement for hearing the appeal was waived, and a stay against recovery was granted during the appeal's pendency.

---