Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2019 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (1) TMI 323 - CESTAT CHENNAINon-payment of service tax - Manpower supply services - Demand of Service tax - input services - CENVAT Credit - Held that:- The appellant had supplied personnel to M/s. Infosys and other clients as per requirements of the latter. These personnel are utilized for development, enhancement, implementation and maintenance of software projects. It is also pertinent to note that such development, enhancement, etc., of software is not assigned to the appellants themselves, but is done only by M/s. Infosys and the other clients. No doubt, the personnel so supplied may well be qualified software personnel. Nonetheless, once such personnel have to function under the overall supervision, control and management of the client, the appellant is only providing services of Manpower Supply - the appellant is liable to pay the service tax - demand upheld. The identical issue was addressed by this Bench in the case of M/s. Future Focus Infotech Pvt. Ltd. [2018 (4) TMI 1041 - CESTAT CHENNAI] wherein this Bench has held that the appellant was supplying skilled manpower for which it was liable to pay service tax for supply of manpower services. Time Limitation - Held that:- Indeed the issue is an interpretational one - the invocation of extended period is unsustainable. However, the Show Cause Notice itself suffers from an incurable deficiency with respect to the calculation of tax liability proposed therein - the demand of ₹ 95,68,100/- with interest thereon in respect of alleged Manpower Supply Services for the period June 2005 to 15.05.2008 will not sustain even for the normal period on this score and will require to be set aside - penalty also set aside. CENVAT Credit - input services - Staff Insurance - Travels - Catering Services - Held that:- The period involved is from June 2005 to May 2008 when the definition of input services had a wide ambit as it included the words ‘activities relating to business’. This being so, denial of these input Credits on the ground that they have no nexus in providing output services cannot sustain - credit allowed. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|