Vidharbha Iron & Steel Co. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Ce & Customs
- CitationAppeal No. ST/593/11
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The reimbursement, at actuals, of salaries, wages and government dues paid to employees who work for another under an arrangement made pursuant to a High Court order, where the service tax liability on renting the premises is already discharged, is not taxable as manpower recruitment and supply agency service; the impugned order was therefore unsustainable and is set aside. Where the issue has already been settled by the Tribunal in the appellant's own earlier case on identical facts, and that ratio has been upheld by the High Court in a subsequent decision, the Tribunal is bound to follow that settled position and a contrary earlier decision relied on by the revenue, decided before the High Court's ruling, does not assist the revenue.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
COURT No. I
Appeal No. ST/593/11
(Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 07/ST/2011/C dated 23.08.2011 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Nagpur)
For approval and signature:
Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. Raju, Member (Technical)
================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the : No CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?
Vidharbha Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. Appellant Vs.
Commissioner of CE & Customs, Nagpur Respondent
Appearance:
None for appellant Shri K.S. Mishra, Addl. Commissioner (AR) for respondent
CORAM:
Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. Raju, Member (Technical)
Date of Hearing: 16.07.2015 Date of Decision: 16.07.2015
ORDER NO
Per: M.V. Ravindran
This appeal is directed against order in appeal number 07/ST/2011/C dated 23/08/2011.
2. Heard learned D.R. and perused the records.
3. On perusal of records we find that the issue involved in this case is regarding the service tax liability on the appellant under the category of man power recruitment and supply agency services. Briefly stated facts and undisputed are appellant had during the material period as per arrangement and order of Honourable High Court of Bombay rented out the factory premises to FACOR and were discharging the service tax liability on renting of immovable property. As per the scheme of arrangement, employees of the appellant were to work for FACOR and the salaries and wages along with the government dues were to be reimbursed at actuals to the appellant. It is a case of the revenue that the amount so received by the appellant is taxable under the category of manpower recruitment and supply agency services.
4. We find that this issue is now settled by this bench in the appellants own case in appeal number ST/08/11. We also find that the issue involved in this case is now squarely settled by the Honble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Arvind Mills Ltd. as reported in 2013-TIOL-1455-CESTAT-AHM upholding the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Arvind Mills Ltd. This bench has followed the ratio in the appellants own case in an identical issue for earlier period held in the favour of appellant. The reliance placed by the departmental representative to canvas the case of Daurala organics - 2009 (14) STR 620 may not carry the case of revenue any further as the judgement of Honourable High Court of Gujarat in the case of Arvind Mills Ltd. (supra) was delivered subsequently.
5. In view of the foregoing, we hold that the impugned order is unsustainable and liable to be set aside and we do so. The impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed.
(Dictated in Court)
(Raju) Member (Technical) (M.V. Ravindran) Member (Judicial)
nsk
??
??
??
??
1 2
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free