Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2018 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (6) TMI 1434 - AT - Service TaxNon/short payment of service tax - demand of service tax alongwith interest and penalty - Goods Transport Service (GTA) - Cleaning Service - Manpower Supply Service - Cargo Handling Service - Packing Service - Construction of Complex Service - Commercial and Industrial Construction Service, Maintenance and Repair Service of Immovable property. GTA Service - Held that:- It clarifies that a person to render goods transport service should be an agency meant exclusively for providing goods transport service by whatever means and for the purpose, he should be issuing a consignment note. None of the criteria is met by the appellant in the present case - the order under challenge qua confirming GTA Service Tax liability is not sustainable. Cleaning Services - Held that:- The authorities below have already reduced the demand for cleaning. At this stage, the demand is only confined to cleaning of SELO MCL i.e cleaning of loose cement either through air slide or by transportation by means to gentry and lump etc. The same is very much included in the definition of cleaning activity under Section 65 (24b) - demand upheld. Manpower Services - Held that:- No doubt the earlier word of “commercial concern” is substituted by word “person” vide an amendment dated 18th April, 2006, but still we are of the firm opinion that it does not extend to an individual person discharging any other service for which he need the manpower, because the word agency still continues in the definition and for the explanation as above under GTA service, the Services provided by the appellant herein cannot be categorized as supply of manpower by a manpower supply agency - There is no evidence that the consideration was paid separately for manpower but it is apparent that it was required for the job as was agreed to be rendered by the appellant. There can be the levy of supplying manpower services - demand set aside. Cargo Handling Service - Held that:- For any service to be called as cargo handling service the loading, unloading, packing or unpacking should be meant only and only for transport, as it is very much evident from the definition under Section 65 (23) of the Act. Not only this, such services should be provided for freight. The definitions specifically mention that mere transportation of goods will not be cargo handling - demand cannot be upheld. Packing Service - Held that:- As per the definition under Section 65 (76 b) any activity of packaging including pouch filling bottling, labeling or imprinting of packages is packaging activity till it does not amount manufacture under Section 2 (f) of the Central Excise Act - Since the loose cement is not a marketable commodity unless and until it is packed in a bag, the activity of the appellant was incidental to manufacture and as such was not a packaging service - demand set aside. Demand of Interest and Penalty - Held that:- The Provision of Section 73 (3) of Finance Act are parimateria with the provisions of Section 11 A (2B) of Central Excise Act, 1944 - Demand of interest and penalty upheld. Appeal allowed in part.
|