2025 (4) TMI 960 - AT - Service Tax

Nature of activity - activity of retreading old tyres by the appellant amounts to manufacture or is to be treated as a service - HELD THAT - The issue of its being a manufacturing activity or otherwise has been dealt with in detail in the impugned order and it is found no reason to interfere with the same and hold that during the material time the activities being carried out by the appellant did not amount to manufacture and therefore no Central Excise duty was leviable thereon. It is an admitted fact that the appellants were a franchisee of MRF Ltd which gave them certain technology of retreading of old tyre and also provided certain specified machinery and materials to be used for such retreading. The actual interaction was with their customers who would get their old tyres retreaded by the appellant. Therefore the terms and conditions of the agreement between the MRF Ltd who gave the appellants the franchise for running a retreading setup with certain proprietary material and technology is of no consequence - once this activity is to be considered as WCS then the SCN itself shall fail because the classification alleged by the department is under MMRS. However to arrive at the said conclusion what is required to be seen is whether the contract between the appellant and their customer is that of composite nature or otherwise. Conclusion - During the material time the activities being carried out by the appellant did not amount to manufacture and therefore no Central Excise duty was leviable thereon. The matter is remanded back to the Original Adjudicating Authority - Appeal disposed off by way of remand.

Summary

The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in this appeal are:

1. Whether the activity of retreading old tyres by the appellant amounts to manufacture or is to be treated as a service for the purpose of levy of service tax.

2. If the activity is a service, whether it falls under the category of 'Management, Maintenance & Repair Service' (MMRS) or 'Works Contract Service' (WCS).

3. Whether the contract between the appellant and their customers is a composite contract involving both labour and material or a non-composite contract with separate valuation of materials and labour.

4. Whether the extended period of limitation for demand of service tax is invokable in the facts of this case.

5. Whether penalty provisions under sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act are applicable.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis

1. Whether the activity amounts to manufacture or service

The legal framework involves the distinction between manufacture and service under the Central Excise and Service Tax laws. The Supreme Court judgment in P.C. Cheriyan Vs Barfi Devi held that the process of repair or retreading of old tyres does not amount to manufacture. The Tribunal relied on this precedent and the impugned order which held that the appellant's retreading activity did not amount to manufacture during the relevant period, and therefore, no Central Excise duty was leviable.

The Court noted that the appellant themselves had initially sought classification under Works Contract Service (WCS) but later contended that retreading was a manufacturing activity and thus not liable to service tax. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the conclusion that retreading is not manufacture but a service.

2. Classification of the service: MMRS or WCS

The definitions under the Finance Act were examined. MMRS is a residual category covering management, maintenance, and repair services. WCS is defined as a contract involving transfer of property in goods in execution of a contract related to construction, erection, repair, maintenance etc., of movable or immovable property.

The appellant argued that their activity falls under WCS because it involves both labour and material, relying on Supreme Court rulings in Larsen & Toubro Ltd and Total Environment Building Systems Pvt Ltd. They further contended that MMRS excludes services related to motor vehicles, and since tyres are part of motor vehicles, MMRS should not apply. They relied on Kerala High Court and Supreme Court decisions affirming this exclusion.

The Revenue contended that the appellant's contract was not composite and that they charged separately for material (on which VAT was paid) and labour (on which no service tax was discharged), thus supporting classification under MMRS.

The Tribunal emphasized the importance of whether the contract is composite or non-composite. Composite contracts cannot be split into labour and material for tax purposes, whereas non-composite contracts allow separate taxation. The Tribunal observed that no contract between the appellant and customers was on record to conclusively determine the nature of the contract. Sample bills showed separate charges for material and labour, and VAT was paid on material.

The Tribunal held that if the contract is composite, the demand under MMRS would fail since the appellant's case would fall under WCS. Conversely, if non-composite, the MMRS classification would sustain. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the Original Adjudicating Authority (OAA) to examine the contracts/purchase orders to determine the contract's nature, applying the Larsen & Toubro judgment as guidance.

3. Limitation and penalty

The appellant challenged the extended period of limitation invoked by the department for demand of service tax, arguing that since the issue had been subject to prolonged litigation up to the Supreme Court, the extended period should not apply. They relied on Supreme Court rulings in Continental Foundation Jt. Venture and Coordinate Bench decisions supporting limitation defenses in complex interpretation cases.

The Tribunal found that the classification of the appellant's activity had undergone different interpretations over a long period, and there was no cogent evidence of deliberate intent to evade payment of duty. Therefore, invocation of the extended period was not justified. However, demands raised within the normal period would sustain if the contract was found to be non-composite and classified under MMRS.

Regarding penalty under sections 76, 77, and 78, the Tribunal held that if the extended period is not invokable, penalty under section 78 would also not be sustainable.

4. Treatment of competing arguments

The appellant's reliance on the exclusion of motor vehicle services from MMRS was noted, but the Tribunal did not find sufficient basis to exclude the tyre retreading service from MMRS without examining the contract nature. The Revenue's contention that separate billing of materials and labour indicated a non-composite contract was accepted as a prima facie fact but required verification through contract documents.

The Tribunal balanced the competing contentions by remanding the matter for fresh adjudication with clear directions to examine contracts and apply relevant Supreme Court precedents.

Significant Holdings

The Tribunal held: "During the material time, the activities being carried out by the appellant did not amount to manufacture and therefore, no Central Excise duty was leviable thereon."

It further stated: "If it is in the nature of composite works contract, the entire demand will not sustain. However, if it is in the nature of MMRS, then the extended period of limitation will not be invokable and penalty under section 78 will also not be invokable."

The Tribunal established the principle that the classification of retreading services depends critically on the nature of the contract with customers-composite or non-composite-and that separate billing of material and labour is a key factor in this determination.

It also clarified that prolonged litigation and absence of deliberate evasion negate the applicability of extended limitation period and penalties.

Finally, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the Original Adjudicating Authority for fresh adjudication within three months, directing the appellant to produce all relevant contracts and documents to enable proper classification and levy of service tax.