By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, MAR 19, 2016: THE assessee filed an application for rectification of an alleged mistake in the Final order no. A/2685/15 dated 04/08/2015 - 2015-TIOL-2691-CESTAT-MUM passed by the Bench.

The CESTAT had while disposing of the appeal placed reliance on the decision in Godavari Khore Cane Transport Company Pvt. Ltd. -  2015-TIOL-253-HC-MUM-ST & inter alia held thus -

ST - 'Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agency Service' - Work order issued by NTPC specifically talks about the acceptance of work on a firm rate basis for welding, and gas cutting on various locations of NTPC - work order does not indicate that the appellant is required to supply only the manpower - On the contrary, scope of the work order indicates a specific job of welding and gas cutting to be undertaken by the appellant - findings recorded by the lower appellate authority also do not rely on any contrary evidence to show that the appellant had charged NTPC on hourly basis - In the absence of any such evidence, view undertaken by both the lower authorities that the activity undertaken by the appellant would fall under the category of 'Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agency Service' needs to be set aside - Order unsustainable to the said extent - Appeal allowed: CESTAT [para 7, 8]

ST - Cleaning Service - Appellant is not contesting the service tax liability on cleaning activity services, hence the same is upheld along with interest - there is nothing on record to show that the appellant needs to be visited with penalty as there could be a genuine misunderstanding in the mind of the appellant - invoking provisions of s.80 of FA, 1994, penalty set aside: CESTAT [para 6, 9]

It is the claim of the applicant in the present ROM application that the Tribunal had erred in holding that the 'Cleaning Services' rendered by the appellant are taxable. Inasmuch as the said 'Cleaning Services' were rendered for transmission, distribution of electricity and were exempted in view of section 11C notification 45/2010-ST dated 20.07.2010.

The Bench observed that it was not impressed with the submission in view of the contents of its final order and that nothing was brought on record to show that the findings were not consistent with the facts of the case.

Paragraph 6 of the order dated 04.08.2015 reads -

6. On a careful consideration of the submissions made by both the sides, we find that the appellant is not contesting the service tax liability on cleaning activity services. We uphold the service tax liability along with interest on cleaning activity services and to that extent the appeal is rejected.

Holding that there is no error apparent on face of the record, the ROM application was dismissed.

(See 2016-TIOL-658-CESTAT-MUM + 2016-TIOL-659-CESTAT-MUM)