TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 1459
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he 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 providing service in the nature of 'man power rec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rious 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 commercial concern it engaged in primarily in recruitment or supply of manpower. 10. Out these views are fortified by the decision in Co-ordinate Ben....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 present application is as to whether the entire order which got mistakenly issued can be held to be an error or the same can be considered to be a review. 10.In the entire scenario, we ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ribunal 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. Therefore, our inference is that order was dictated correctly. Though the transcription which got signed relate to a different matter. Therefore, it is very obviously a mistake apparent on reco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 facilities were installed in the premises of GSFC. However, fact remains, for which there is no dispute, that for installation of these facilities both the parties had contributed towards the investment. Since the s....