2018 (4) TMI 540 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal reverses demands & penalties for alleged service tax non-payment, finding no supply of manpower

Ingle & Sons Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte confirmed demands and penalties against the Appellant for alleged non-payment of service tax for supplying manpower. ... Manpower recruitment or Supply Agency service - appellant submits that the services rendered by the Appellant were for various jobs and not for supply of labor - time limitation - Held that: - since none of the amount received by the Appellant is, on the basis of number of persons or number of manhours, therefore it cannot be said that the Appellant has supplied manpower - reliance placed in the case of SS. Associates Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore [2009 (12) TMI 152 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] - demand set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:Allegations of non-payment of service tax for supplying manpower, Time-barred demands, Applicability of penalties under FA, 1994, Interpretation of services rendered by the Appellant, Jurisdictional report analysis, Precedent judgment comparison, Decision on setting aside impugned orders.Analysis:The case involved allegations of the Appellant not discharging service tax for supplying manpower to a company, leading to demands raised under the category of 'Manpower recruitment or Supply Agency' with proposed penalties under sections 76, 77, and 78 of the FA, 1994. The demands were confirmed ex-parte against the Appellant, who then appealed against the decision. The Appellant argued that the services rendered were for specific jobs and not for the supply of labor, citing a report from the jurisdictional authorities of the company they worked for.The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the Appellant had carried out specific jobs like POY paper tubes cleaning, POY loading, trolley shifting, and bale pressing, which were not indicative of supplying manpower based on the number of persons or man-hours. The Commissioner found that the Appellant did not supply manpower as per the nature of the work performed. This finding was supported by a report from the jurisdictional central excise officer, which concluded that the demand confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority was correct due to the nature of the services provided.The Tribunal analyzed the facts and orders, noting that the Appellant's services were for specific jobs and not for the supply of manpower. Relying on a precedent judgment of the Tribunal in a similar case, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and allowed the appeal, providing consequential reliefs to the Appellant. The decision was based on the interpretation of the services rendered by the Appellant and the lack of evidence supporting the claim of supplying manpower, ultimately leading to the reversal of the demands and penalties imposed.In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision focused on the nature of services provided by the Appellant, the lack of evidence supporting the claim of supplying manpower, and the comparison with a precedent judgment. The judgment highlighted the importance of analyzing the specific jobs performed to determine the applicability of service tax under the category of 'Manpower Recruitment & Supply Agency,' ultimately resulting in the setting aside of the demands and penalties against the Appellant.