TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 909
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s revealed that such contractors, who are appellants herein, had neither got themselves registered with the department as service provider nor had they paid any service tax on the value received from TAFE for providing taxable services. The details of the agreement entered into between TAFE and the appellants were called for and examined. The Department entertained a view that the activity would be taxable under 'Man Power Recruitment or Supply Agency Service'. Show cause notices were issued and after due process of law, the original authority confirmed the demand, interest and imposed penalties. Aggrieved by such order (OIO No.3/2015), the appellant has filed Appeal No.ST/41317/2015. Against other Original-in-Orders, the respective appellants filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the same. The details of the appeals, period involved and the amounts confirmed are given in the table below : Sl No. Appellant Appeal No. Impugned Order-in-Original/Appeal No./dt. Amount of Service Tax involved Rs. Period covered 1 G.Sakthivel ST/41317/2015 O-in-O No. 3/2015 dt.06.03.2015 73,36,946/- 04/08 to 06/12 2 S.Subburayulu ST/41821/2015 O-in-A N....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....been providing similar activity to TAFE, the Tribunal vide Final Order Nos.40359-40367/2019 dated 19.02.2019, Final Order Nos.41762-41771/2021 dated 23.08.2021 and Final Order Nos.41888-41889/2021 dated 26.08.2021 had allowed the appeals by setting aside the demand for the period prior to June 2012. For the period after June 2012, the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority. The Tribunal in the said final orders had relied upon the decision in the case of Bhagyashree Enterprises VS CCE Pune-I - 2017 (3) GSTL 515 (Tri.-Mumbai) and observed that the activity provided by the appellant would not attract levy of service tax under the category of 'Man Power Recruitment and Supply Agency Service'. 6. In addition to the above, the Ld. Counsel submitted that the issue raised is fully covered in favour of the appellant in terms of CBEC Circular No.190/9/2015-ST 15.12.2015 clarifying the position under the negative list-based service tax regime with effect from 01.07.2012 which reads as under : "2. The matter has been examined. The nature of manpower supply service is quite distinct from the service of job work. The essential characteristics of manpower supply service are that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erroneous. He submitted that for the period after June 2012, the matters may be remanded for requantifying the taxable value also. He prayed that the appeals may be allowed. 9. Ld. A.R Shri Arul C. Durairaj supported the findings in the impugned order. 10. Heard both sides. From the table shown in para (2) above, it can be seen that the period involved is from April 2008 to March 2013. The Tribunal in similar cases, wherein contactors had provided services to TAFE and income was received on piece rate, had observed that the contractors were liable to execute the work for TAFE and are responsible for the defect, if any. It was held that the activity would not fall within the definition of "Man Power Recruitment or Supply Agency Services". In similar matters vide Final Order Nos.40359-40367/2019 dated 19.02.2019 where the period involved is prior to June 2012 (name of the appellants are : G. Ramakrishnan, K. Balakrishnan, P. Kannusamy, M. Arulprakasam, R. Athinarayanan and S. Subburayalu), the Tribunal had set aside the demand relying upon the decision in the case of Bhagyashree Enterprises (supra). The observations made in the said final order read as under : "On perusal of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l Prakasam, S. Subburayalu, G. Ramakrishnan, R. Athinarayanan and P. Kannusamy. Following the decisions of the Tribunal in the above stated final orders, we are of the considered opinion that the demand prior to June 2012 cannot sustain and requires to be set aside, which we hereby do. Ordered accordingly. 11. However, we have to say that there is change of law with effect from 01.07.2012. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for appellants that appellants have obtained registration with the department and has started paying service tax. In similar matters for the period after June 2012, the Tribunal vide Final Order No.41888-41889/2021 dt.26.08.2021 has remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for re-computation of the service tax after granting cum tax benefit. The relevant paragraphs of the above said final order are reproduced as under : "7. Following the same, we are of the view that the demand prior to 2012 cannot sustain and requires to be set aside which we hereby do. 8. The ld. Counsel has submitted that they are not contesting the liability after 2012. It is also argued by him that they have discharged the service tax liability and the matter may be remanded t....