2025 (9) TMI 335

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he appellant is registered with the service tax department under the category of "manpower recruitment services". It was found by the department that the appellant is not paying correct amount of service tax in the aforesaid category of services in contravention to provisions of Sections 68 & 70 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Rules 6 & 7 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. On scrutiny of information received from M/s Markfed Cattle Feed & Allied Industries, it was found that the appellant was providing two types of services to the Cattle Feed unit, first 'manpower supply service' and second 'transportation of goods by road service'. Further, it appeared that the appellant was liable to pay service tax on 'manpower supply service' as the Cat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....iled appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who, vide the impugned order dated 30.12.2022, has rejected their appeal and upheld the Order-in-Original. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the material on record. 4. The learned Consultant for the appellant submits that -the impugned order, confirming the interest on service tax demand, invocation of extended period of limitation and penalty under Section 78, is not sustainable in law and is liable to be set aside as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law. 4.1 The learned Consultant further submits that the appellant provided manpower supply and GTA services to Markfed for the year 2012-13 but did not collect service....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....able at the time of payment and not under earlier Notifications 14/2011-ST and 12/2014-ST. He further submits that the appellant is liable to pay the interest under Notification 13/2016-ST which is prevailing notification on the dates of actual payment. In this regard, he relies on the decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of M/s Bala Ji Manpower Services vs. UOI and Ors. in Civil Writ Petition No. 13696 of 2020 decided on 22.04.2021. 4.4 The learned Consultant further submits that invocation of extended period of limitation is not justified in the facts and circumstances of the present case as the appellant had a bona fide belief that Markfed is liable to pay the service tax under the reverse charge as a 'body corp....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... are entirely different and secondly, the said decision was rendered in a Writ Petition, whereas the demand of interest is governed by the statutory provision as prescribed under the Finance Act, 1994. 6. I have considered the submissions made by both the parties and perused the material on record as well as the decisions relied upon by both the parties. I find that the appellant provided the manpower supply services to Markfed and was under the bona fide belief that they are not liable to pay the service tax as Markfed is liable to pay the service tax under reverse charge being a 'body corporate' and this is the reason that they did not pay the service tax, but when the issue was raised by the department and show cause notice was issued....