Diamond Flush Doors P Ltd vs. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise - (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal) (19 Jun 2024)

Mere reference to invoices raised without reference to specific provisions of a contract or working arrangement, will not indicate employer-employee relationship

MANU/CC/0200/2024

Service Tax

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 and alteration, designing and 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 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.

The question before present Tribunal is whether there is a relationship of employer and an employee between the appellant, who is the manufacturer of flush doors and the persons who fix the doors at the buyers' premises. The issue involves a mixed question of fact and law. Mere reference to invoices raised or payments made, without reference to the specific provisions of a contract or working arrangement, will not be indicative of employer-employee relationship.

In the light of the non-examination of the true nature of relationship between the parties a conclusion of the appellant being the employer of the workers cannot be fastened by assumptions and presumptions. Revenue has not proved its case regarding the true nature of the disputed activity provided by workmen to the appellants customers. Hence, the question of examining the correctness of the extended period invoked or imposition of penalty does not arise. The impugned order is set aside. Appeal allowed.

Tags : DEMAND CONFIRMATION LEGALITY