Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2014 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (7) TMI 1012 - AT - Service TaxWaiver of pre-deposit - Cargo handling service - whether by way of loading, unloading or transportation or stacking - within the factory premises of RINL these activities would not fall within the ambit of ‘cargo handling service’ - Held that:- The demand under ‘management, maintenance or repair service’ is to the tune of ₹ 98 lakhs, that under ‘commercial or industrial construction service’ is to the tune of ₹ 38 lakhs and the rest of the demand (a little over ₹ 1 lakh) is under ‘manpower recruitment or supply agency service’ - Prima facie, from the description of works, it appears that the first appellant was handling cargo of RINL. This activity was undertaken by way of loading, unloading, stacking etc. and, of course, incidental transportation of the goods also. We are not impressed with the argument that ‘goods’ are different from ‘cargo’. Incidental transportation of any goods would not per se take out such activities from the purview of the definition of ‘cargo handling service’ - It is not the case of the appellant that they voluntarily disclosed their activities to the department. The departmental knowledge referred to by the learned counsel might be related to visits by the Range Officer to the factory of RINL. But there is nothing on record to show that there was any positive act or gesture on the appellant’s part to disclose the material facts to the department or to communicate to the department that they had ever maintained a bona fide belief against service tax liability. The plea of financial hardships raised by the learned counsel has also been considered. The first appellant is a public sector undertaking and the balance sheet produced by them indicates some losses for the year ended 31-3-2011 - Appellant has no prima facie case on merits - stay granted partly. Demand of service tax from Sub-contractor - Held that:- There was a circular of the Board, issued in 1997, which also prompted the second appellant to believe that they would not be liable to pay service tax qua sub-contractor. It was only in 2007 that the Board changed the view and clarified that a sub-contractor would also be liable like the main contractor for payment of service tax in respect of a given work. The period of dispute in this case is October 2002 - March 2007. - Full stay granted in respect of sub-contractor.
|