Machine hire services with effective control constitute supply of tangible goods, not exempt under Section 66D

CESTAT New Delhi dismissed the appeal regarding taxability of goods transport operator services. The tribunal held that machine hire services with effective control remaining with the appellant constituted supply of tangible goods, not covered under Section 66D exemption. Regarding the Sabka Vishwas Legacy Dispute Resolution Scheme 2019, the tribunal ruled that benefits are available only to declarants who personally apply under the scheme. Since the appellant did not individually apply under SVLDRS 2019, despite the company's application, the amnesty scheme benefits could not be extended. The tribunal emphasized that companies and directors are separate legal entities, requiring individual applications for scheme benefits. The challenged order was upheld.

---

---

Issues:
1. Taxability of services provided by the appellant under the categories of 'Goods Transport Operator' and 'Consulting Engineer Services'.
2. Applicability of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 to the appellant.
3. Interpretation of Sections 124 and 129 of the SVLDRS scheme.
4. Eligibility of the appellant to avail benefits under the SVLDRS scheme.
5. Consideration of penalty imposition on the appellant in light of the SVLDRS scheme.

Taxability of Services Provided:
The appellant, engaged in providing services to clients by supplying heavy machines and operators to construction sites, was found to have effective control and possession of the machines given on hire. The department categorized the activity under "Supply of Tangible Goods," proposing a service tax amounting to Rs. 46,18,084. The Tribunal upheld the department's decision, rejecting the appellant's appeal against the order.

Applicability of SVLDRS Scheme:
The appellant applied for closure under the SVLDRS scheme, which was granted, resulting in a discharge of tax liability. The appellant sought relief under the scheme, citing various decisions and emphasizing Section 124(1)(b) of the scheme. However, the Tribunal noted that the relief under the SVLDRS scheme is available only to the declarant, and since the appellant did not personally apply under the scheme, the benefits could not be extended to them.

Interpretation of SVLDRS Scheme Sections:
Sections 124 and 129 of the SVLDRS scheme were analyzed to understand the relief available to declarants and the conclusive nature of discharge certificates. The Tribunal highlighted that relief under the scheme is specifically for declarants, and discharge certificates are issued only to declarants, absolving them from further duty, interest, or penalty.

Eligibility for SVLDRS Benefits:
The Tribunal emphasized that the relief and benefits under the SVLDRS scheme are intended for declarants who have applied under the scheme. While the circular associated with the scheme aims at resolving legacy tax issues and providing relief, it mandates strict adherence to timelines and procedures for availing benefits.

Consideration of Penalty Imposition:
The appellant's argument for penalty waiver under the SVLDRS scheme was dismissed as the appellant did not apply under the scheme personally. The Tribunal referenced specific cases to illustrate that penalty waivers under the scheme are contingent upon the discharge of duty demands by the main noticees, and co-noticees must also apply under the scheme to benefit from penalty waivers.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the department's decision, stating that the appellant, not being a declarant under the SVLDRS scheme, was ineligible for the benefits offered. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the penalty imposed on the appellant.

---