AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 8
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed. The period in dispute is from 01 April, 2014 to 31 March, 2015. 2. The issue involved in this appeal is regarding the applicability of Service Tax on deputation/secondment of employees from a group company in Japan to the appellant in India. 3. M/s Mikuni India Private Limited is engaged in the manufacture of throttle body, carburettors and other automobile parts falling under Chapter Heading 8708 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. It entered into a Cost Reimbursement Agreement (CRA) with M/s Mikuni Corporation, Japan (MCI) for receiving its personnel on secondment as and when required by the appellant. The relevant terms of the agreement, in short, are as follows: "(a) Japanese personnel have to be considered as employee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... indirectly, in any manner for recruitment or supply of manpower, temporarily or otherwise, to any person 65 (105)(k) - taxable services means any service provided or to be provided to any person, by a manpower recruitment or supply agency in relation to the recruitment or supply of manpower, temporarily or otherwise, in any manner. Explanation.- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that for the purposes of this sub-clause, reimbursement or supply of manpower includes services in relation to pre-recruitment screening, verification of the credentials and antecedents of the candidate and authenticity of documents submitted by the candidate". 6. Even after 1 July, 2012, Service Tax could be levied on the salari....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t MCI is engaged in the manufacture of carburettors and not in the business of supply of manpower and, therefore, cannot be treated as a "Manpower Supply Agency" and, therefore, no service tax is payable on transfer of Japanese personnel from MCI to the appellant. Learned Counsel pointed out that MCI has only done activities of paying money to the employees of the appellant on behalf of the appellant and for such an activity, MCI is not charging any consideration. It is, therefore, his submission that since no consideration is involved, the activity will not qualify as a service and consequently service tax cannot be levied. Learned Counsel pointed out that reimbursement is on cost to cost basis. In support of his contention, learned Counse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thing on record about the same being ever notified. Thus, we are of the opinion that the adjudicating authority below has definitely committed an error while relying upon the draft circular. 10. For the period post 1 July, 2012, the Division bench observed: "7. For the post negative list period: Section 65B(44) of Finance Act 1944 comes to the rescue of the appellant which reads as follows: "Section 65B: Interpretations: (44) "Service" means any activity carried out by a person for another for consideration, and includes a declared service, but shall not include .......................... (b) a provision of service by an employee to the employer in the course of or in relation to his employmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he case of Commissioner of Service Tax Vs. Arvind Mills Ltd. - 2014 (35) STR 496 has held that even if the actual cost incurred by appellant in terms of salary remuneration and perquisites is only reimbursed by group of companies, there remains no element of profit or finance benefit. The arrangement is that of the continuous control and the direction of the company to whom the holding company has deputed the employee such as an arrangement is out of the ambit to be called manpower supply service. This Tribunal also in appellant's own case as decided by Final Order No. 70436/2019 dated 11.10.2019 by relying upon the case of Volkswagen India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pune-I - 2014 (34) STR 135 (Tri.-Mumbai) and the above discussed case law has held....