TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 406X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) And Shri Raju, Member (Technical) Shri Prakash Shah, Advocate for Appellant Shri M.K. Sarangi, Addl. Commr. (A.R) for respondent ORDER Per : Ramesh Nair The fact of the case is that the appellant are receiving the professional charges from their group companies on account of deputation of the staff of the appellant under which the appellants staff are deputed for carrying out various work to their group/associate companies. The appellant on same service started paying service tax w.e.f. 16.5.2008 classifying the services under the category of Manpower Recruitment Supply Agency Services. However, during the period April 2005 to May 2008 though they have deputed their staff to various ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmits that the appellant and the service recipient to whom the manpower was supplied are distinct legal entity therefore there is a relationship of service provider and the service recipient/client. Therefore even though the service recipients are associate/subsidiary/group companies being a separate entity the service provided by the appellant is taxable. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. We find that on the very same issue in the appellant's own case this Tribunal has already taken a view. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced below: 5. On consideration of the detailed submissions made by both sides and on perusal of the records, we find that the issue lies in a small and narrow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adjudicating authority, secondly, assessee could not have addressed himself the classification of the services, unless the first appellate authority has issued a show-cause notice to the appellant to that effect. From the records it transpires that the first appellate authority has not issued show cause notice to the appellant for reclassification of the service to the 'Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service'. On this legal issue itself, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Be that as it may we find that the issue on the similar facts was agitated before the Tribunal in the case of Arvind Mills v. Commissioner of Service Tax - 2014 (34) S.T.R. 610 (Tri.-Ahmd.) wherein the Tribunal held that deputation of employees ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
