9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (1) TMI 215 - AT - Service TaxManpower Recruitment and Supply Agency Services - Appellant is doing the job for cutting, welding, fabricating, pipe fittings etc. on the engineering raw materials supplied by the Tube Product Incorporate (TPI) - The said work was done in the premises of TPI for which they were engaging skilled/ semi-skilled and unskilled technical workers and contractors and raising lump sum bill on the TPI - Held that - As concluding from the facts work force employed for doing this job was paid by the appellants herein and not by the TPI. Following the decision in case of Ritesh Enterprises (2009 (10) TMI 182 - CESTAT, BANGALORE) Appellants have made out a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit of the amounts involved. Waiver of pre-deposit and stay granted
Issues:
Stay petitions for waiver of pre-deposit involving penalty under Section 76, Service Tax and penalties under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 for various appeal numbers. Analysis: The Tribunal considered multiple stay petitions together concerning the waiver of pre-deposit amounts, including penalties and Service Tax under the Finance Act, 1994. The adjudicating authority and the first appellate authority had confirmed the amounts, citing the appellant's provision of Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agency Services. However, the appellant argued that they had engaged in specific work for M/s Tube Product Incorporate (TPI) on TPI's premises, which did not fall under the category of Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency services as defined in Section 65 (68) of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant referred to a previous case where a similar matter was decided in favor of the assessee, emphasizing the nature of the contract and service provided. Upon reviewing the submissions, the Tribunal noted that the appellant had undertaken specific tasks like cutting, welding, fabricating, and pipe fittings on materials supplied by TPI within TPI's factory premises. The workforce involved was paid by the appellant, not by TPI. Considering these facts and the precedent set by a previous case, the Tribunal found that the appellant had established a prima facie case for the waiver of pre-deposit amounts. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the applications for waiver and stayed the recovery of the amounts until the appeals were disposed of.
|
