TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (6) TMI 664
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... are that revenue on inquiry noticed that there was huge difference between the amounts declared by the appellant in the ST-3 return and the actual payment received by them from their service recipients. After conducting investigations it was alleged that the appellant is providing service of supply of labour, giving on rent passenger vehicle for transport of persons, giving tractor / trailer / porclain on lease and construction work which are taxable services. They were issued SCN dated 09.10.2012 demanding service tax of Rs. 38,99,037/- on services of Supply of Manpower, Works Contract, Supply of Tangible Goods and Rent -a-Cab Service. It was also proposed to impose penalties under Section 76, 77 & 78 of Finance Act, 1994. The demand of s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ply of Tangible Goods Service they have supplied tractors to M/s Sahyadri Agro for agricultural related activity which is not covered under Service Tax as clarified vide CBEC letter F. No. B.1/6/2005-TRU dated 27.07.2005. They also submitted that the value should be considered as cum tax. Further that they have not been given option for payment of reduced penalty of 25%. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the activity of construction of cow sheds, repairing of pipe lines and its maintenance does not fall under any of the excluded category on which service tax is not payable. As regards demands under the category of Supply of Manpower Service he held that the expression "in any manner" stated in definition of "Manpower Recruitment and Supp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se of imposition of penalty under Section 78 if the demand and interest is paid within 30 days of the passing of the Order-in-Appeal. Being aggrieved, the Appellant has filed appeal against the demand and penalty, the revenue has filed appeal against the option granted to assessee of payment of reduced penalty of 25%. 2. Shri Suresh Singh Ld. Cost Accountant appearing on behalf of appellants submits that the demand under Supply of Manpower Agency service is not correct as in number of cases they had done a particular job as per the purchase order and the contract was not for supply of labour. He has drawn our attention to some of work orders which are for specic jobs. He submits that since the said service was not pertaining to Manpower ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Unloading Charges, Lucrene grass Unloading Charges, Cattlefeed & other material unloading charges. These services since not based upon the number of persons but based upon specific performance of work cannot be said to be of Manpower Supply Service. Further in case of demand under Works Contract Service we find that in case of service rendered to M/s. Sahyadri Agro for construction of cow sheds, repairing of pipelines for periodic maintenance, the appellant has not contested service tax demand. In case of demand under the category of Supply of Tangible Goods Service, we find from the purchase order that the appellant has undertaken the work of Excavation in all types of Soil, Soft Murrum & Hard Murrum including loading of excavated materia....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t supply labour only. Further in case of demand of service tax under the category of Supply of Tangible goods services we find that the appellant has not provided goods but has performed specific jobs as discussed above. Thus since the appellant has not supplied any machinery equipments or appliance for use, therefore the services are not taxable under the category of Supply of Tangible Goods Service. In view of our above observation we hold as under: (i) Demand under the category of Rent-a cab service and supply of tangible goods is set aside. (ii) In case of demand under Manpower Supply Service the matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority to recompute the demand so as to confirm demand only where the appella....