NEELAV JAISWAL AND BROTHERS Vs. C.C.E.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the stage of considering the stay petition No. 3365/2012, Counsel for the petitioner/appellant and the ld. A.R. for Revenue agree, having regard to the narrow compass within which the substantive appeal falls for determination that the appeal itself be disposed of. Accepting the request, the appeal is disposed of. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh by the adjudication order dated 23.3.2012 confirmed service tax demand of Rs. 41,037/ - apart from interest and penalties as specified, including penalty equivalent to the tax demand confirmed, under Section 78 of the Finance Act (the Act). The assessees appeal was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals), Allahabad vide order dated 21.5.2012. Hence this appeal.

(2.) A scrutiny by Revenue of the record of M/s Hindalco Industries Ltd., Renukoot, revealed that the assessee was engaged in providing the taxable man -power recruitment or supply agency service and had received a total amount of Rs. 3,47,481/ - towards the provident fund contribution in respect of personnel deployed by the assessee to M/s Hindalco Industries Ltd.

(3.) THE appellant failed to deposit service tax of Rs. 41,037/ - relatable to the amount of provident fund contribution received from Hindalco Industries Ltd., for providing the taxable service aforementioned, during the period April 2005 to March 2010. Proceedings were initiated and after a due process, an adjudication order came to be passed. There is no contest as to any transgression of natural justice requirements in passing the adjudication order. The contention that was disfavoured by the primary and appellate authorities and is reiterated before this Tribunal is that since the provident fund contribution (remittable by the assessee to the credit of provident fund accounts of its employees under the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952), was separately paid by M/s Hindalco to the assessee and not as part of payments meant for providing the taxable service, this amount cannot legitimately be included in the gross value of the taxable service for computation of the taxable value and levy of tax.