TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 1459
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the period 01.07.2006 to 31.03.2007, both the companies were sharing various expenses incurred in their factories on the basis of sharing formula depending upon turnover and other overhead cost basis. They recovered the salary of executives and other incurred in excess of the sharing formula from each other were reimbursed by debiting it from their respective accounts. In other words, the employees and executives in the pay rolls of M/s Gujarat Sidhee Cement Ltd were performing the works of M/s Gujarat Sidhee Cement and vice versa. The expenditure incurred by M/s Saurashtra Cement Ltd in excess of the sharing formula was recovered from M/s Gujarat Sidhee Cement and vice versa. Therefore, it appeared that this adjustment tantamount to prov....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....able for service tax under man power recruitment and supply agency service. This issue is no longer res integra as in the similar facts various judgments were passed by this Tribunal wherein it was held that common staff used on sharing basis by two group companies does not amount to provision of service, accordingly, demand of service tax were dropped. In the matter of Arvind Mills Ltd (Supra), this Tribunal held as under: "9. On careful consideration reading of definition, it is to be noted that service tax liability is on a commercial concern engaged in providing any service, which is recruitment or the supply of manpower. As has been already recorded earlier the appellant herein is a composite textile mill and is not a commerci....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tay petition also gets disposed of." 11. No other contrary decision has been brought to our notice by either side. 12. Since the issue in the hand is identical to the issue in the case of Paramount Communication we find that the impugned order is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside and we do so. 13. In view of the foregoing the impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed." In the case of Paramount communication Ltd (Supra) this Tribunal passed the following order: "9.We are aware of all the judgments cited by the learned AR and the ratio laid down is that no review can be sought for, in the garb of application for rectification of mistake. The question required to be decided in the presen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es on pointing out by either side or by the Tribunal itself. If the same comes to the notice of the Tribunal as such even if the present ROM application was not filed by the Revenue, the Tribunal was empowered to rectify the mistake on its own, on coming to know of the same. Similarly, such rectification application can be filed by the assessee also inasmuch as the Final Order does not relate to facts of their case. So, the insistence of the learned AR that such ROM application filed by the Revenue should be rejected at the threshold cannot be appreciated and prayer to that effect cannot be accepted. 11.At the stage of dictating order on 5-6-2012, no objection regarding the facts or the arguments dictated was raised by either side.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... GACL and then shared in the ratio of 60 : 40 respectively. GSFC and GACL are public sector undertakings, as already mentioned above. Since HCN is to be received through pipeline, it is abundantly clear that in order to save the expenditure, both the parties agreed that there should be a common pipeline. Once HCN is received through the said common pipeline, it comes first to GSFC's premises and from there it is diverted in the ratio of 60 : 40, meaning thereby that GSFC receives 60% of the HCN whereas GACL receives 40% of the supply in accordance with their respective requirement. To enable GACL to receive this HCN through common pipeline, arrangement/agreement was entered into between these two parties. For this purpose, handling faciliti....