TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 416X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it has been held by the Tribunal in several decisions, that coverage under manpower recruitment or supply agency service for tax may be determined by the manner in which consideration is packaged. The Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, intended for the specific purpose of ensuring proper working conditions of those not in regular employment, does not, in the light of the specific definitions in Finance Act, 1994, provide adequate support to fasten tax liability. That is not relevant to the dispute and may be ignored. It is seen from the findings of the adjudicating authority that the claim of the appellant of having engaged in contract on piece rate basis , though undeniable in some of the work orders , has bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... actured by M/s Ghatge Patil Industries Ltd against work orders issued by the latter. 2. Learned Counsel, narrating the background of the demand, informs that appellant installed machinery for shot blasting at the premises of the principal manufacturer and that three combinations of operations had been undertaken by them by working these machines deploying labour on their rolls, by their employees working on machines installed by the principal manufacturer and by undertaking operations on premises for which they were charged by the principal manufacturer. It was also informed that they had initially taken registration as provider of business auxiliary service which, however, was surrendered upon coverage by the exclusion in notifica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 35) GSTL 406 (Tri.-Del.)] which held that 7. From the perusal of the copy of the agreement and copy of the bills on record, I find that the appellant has entered into an agreement for execution of various works for the principal - CPP. The payment for such work is based on the volume of the work executed and not according to the number of workmen deployed by the appellant. 8. We further find that such facts have been recorded in the impugned order-in-original wherein the Ld. Commissioner has taken notice of the agreement and the rates for various works e.g. lifting of wood from yard and supply to R.G.P. Chipper, is at the rate of ₹ 20/- per M.T. Similarly, for other work also like debarking of stacks of green wood, splitting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er compulsion by the principal, started paying service tax. Under the facts and circumstances, we find that there is no case of any contumacious conduct, suppression or falsification of records on the part of the appellant. Further, whatever service tax the appellant would have paid was available to the principal - CPP as the Cenvat credit, as they have discharged central excise liability for their manufactured goods - paper/paper pulp. Thus, we hold that extended period is not invocable. in the context of the submission that mere discharge of tax liability under reverse charge mechanism , stipulated for manpower recruitment and supply agency service for the period after 1st July 2012, would not serve to advance the case of the serv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e as claimed by the appellant. It is also a submission that, notwithstanding the terms of the work orders , performance contracted by mutual agreement was comprehended by the recipient as supply of manpower service , as evidenced by discharge of tax liability on a service which, while continuing after 1st July 2013, was, as one of the exceptions to the negative list regime, enumerated specifically to bifurcate obligation of tax payment. As far as the acceptance of the orders dropping the proceedings on demand for period after 2013, he submits that, in the absence of relevant information, the possibility of the National Litigation Policy barring further appeals precludes acceptance of the submission that the principle enshrined in those o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch, in accordance with the precedent arising from decisions of the Tribunal, coverage under that taxable service would not extend. This, the adjudicating authority has failed to do. The tax liability of the appellant for the period after 1st July 2012 also needs ascertainment by segregation of the work-orders on which tax liability may arise and re-examining those in the light of statutory provision and judicial precedent. 8. To enable this, we set aside the impugned order and remand the dispute back to the original authority for a fresh decision, including that on the scope for invoking the extended period, after evaluating the contentions raised by the appellant. (Order pronounced in the open court on 07/09/2021) - - TaxTMI - TM ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
