M. Ajit Kumar DECISION
M. Ajit Kumar, Member (T)
1. The above appeal filed against Order in Appeal No.180/2014 (M- III) ST dated 06.08.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax (Appeals), Chennai, (impugned order).
2. Brief facts of the case are that the Appellant is a small-scale unit, manufacturing flush doors. On scrutiny of their records, it was found that they had raised labour charge invoices for door fixing & alteration, designing & carpentry work at customer's site. A Show Cause Notice was issued to the appellant as the activity appeared to fall under the category of 'Manpower Recruitment of Supply Agency Service' as per the definition under Section 65(68) of the Finance Act, 1994 since the Appellant had failed to register, file statutory ST-3 Returns and pay service tax for the amount received towards such service rendered by them. After due process of law, the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand of an amount of Rs 5,62,192/- for the period from April 2005 to March 2009 and Rs.1,01,77/- for the period from April 2009 to May 2010 under Section/3(1) along with appropriate interest under Section 75 and imposed penalty under Sections 76,77 and 78 of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the same was rejected. Hence the appellant is now before the Tribunal.
3. Shri N. Viswanathan, learned Counsel appeared the appellant and Shri Harendra Singh Pal, learned AR appeared for the respondent.
4. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant stated that they are a small- scale manufacturer engaged in the manufacture and sale of flush doors. Upon request of their customers, they arrange to engage carpenters to be sent to the required premises for fixing the door or for altering it. The carpenter/s so engaged are not their employees nor do they come under their control or directions but are independent contractors who were engaged on a principal-to-principal basis by them. The said carpenters will be charging fixed piece rates depending upon the nature of work performed and by raising their bills on the appellant. Some doors may need alternation and/or additional carpentry work. Accordingly based on the nature of the carpentry work done and based on the bills raised by the carpenters the appellant in turn was raising invoices on their customers charging labour charges for fixing of doors. The fixing of doors is incidental and ancillary to the sale and supply of doors by them and is a bundled activity. They are in the nature of reimbursable charges which are not subject to service tax as per the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Inter- Continental Consultants and technocrats MANU/SC/0229/2018 : 2018 (10) G.S.T.L. 401 (S.C.). There was no evidence before the respondent authorities showing that they are a manpower agency supplying man power/ labourers. The service recipient was also not charged on man hour or per day wages basis but only the labour charges for the work carried out. The carpenters are their own masters and they were not working under the control or direction of any other persons. The subsequent Board's circular dated 15.12.2015 clarifying the nature of the services that fall under man power supply service provider also fully supports their case. In addition, the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Tiwari Services reported in [MANU/CM/0548/2019 : 2020 [37] GSTL 57] supports their case. He stated that there was no suppression of any fact to invoke the extended time limit for issue of SCN. Nor was there any violation on the........