Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2016 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (4) TMI 451 - AT - Service TaxClassification - Contract on lump-sum/job basis of Storage Warehouse and handling of Agricultural Produce - Whether the services needs to be classified under "Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agency Services" as claimed by Revenue or "Storage Warehouse and Handling of Agriculture produce" as claimed by the appellant - Held that:- the said Works Order, various terms and conditions, indicate that appellant has to produce attendance sheet, proof of actual payment towards statutory obligations like PF, ESIC etc., it would mean that the contract entered was for supply of unskilled manpower, that the bill has been made by the appellant as services charges for "Storage Warehouse and Handling of Agricultural Produce" through Works Order given description of work and supply of unskilled Manpower are directly under the category of "Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agency Services". In view of these facts, the appellant has no case. Tax liability and interest - Held that:- it is not found from the Work Orders which were issued, that appellants need to be extended the benefit of cum tax benefit as the value shown on the bills indicated an amount received by them needs to considered as cum tax value and the Service Tax liability needs to be worked back. For this limited purpose the matter is remanded back to the original adjudicating authority to recalculate the tax liability and the interest thereof. Imposition of penalties - Held that:- appellant could have entertained a bonafide belief that the activity under-taken by them being in respect of "Storage Warehouse and Handling of Agricultural Produce"; Service tax liability may not arises. Extending the benefit of doubt to the appellant, the provision of Section 80 of the Finance Act,1994 is invoked and the penalties imposed on the appellant are set aside. - Appeal disposed of
|