2012 (11) TMI 438

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... S. Negi, AR, for the Respondent. [Order]. -  During the course of audit of M/s. Priti Marine Pvt. Ltd., GIDC-1, Sihor, a registered manufacturing unit, it was noticed that they had paid the labour charges of Rs. 8,54,712/- during the financial year 2005-06 and Rs. 4,84,392/- during the financial year 2006-07 to their labour contractor namely Akbarali Fodarali Ansari (hereinafter referred to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... for last 10 years on contract basis. On being asked, he stated that he had been working for last 2 years with M/s. Prakash Re-Rollers Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Priti Marine Pvt. Ltd. as a contractor by which he supplied the labour on the basis of monthly salary and for that he raised the labourer's salary bill alongwith his own commission, in such way he did the labour contract business. On being asked, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nt of penalty. The appellant paid the service tax demand with interest and 25% towards penalty. The appeal filed by the appellant was rejected vide Order-in-Appeal No. 68/2010(BVR)KCG/ Commr.(A)/Ahd. dated 29-7-2010. Aggrieved by the fact that the original adjudicating authority did not impose penalty under Section 76 of the Act, Department also filed an appeal against the order and the Commission .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the case, I find that 4 summons had to be issued to the appellant to make him appear before the authorities and subsequently also he refused to receive the personal hearing intimation and did not participate in the adjudication proceedings. Further, it has to be noted that the Department came to know about the fact that appellant was providing manpower supply service only during the audit of serv .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eing shown. In view of the above discussion, Appeal No. ST/570/2010 is rejected thereby confirming the demand for service tax, interest and imposition of penalty under Section 78 of the Act and Appeal No. ST/571/2010 is rejected thereby holding the penalty under Section 76 of the Act. (Operative portion of this order pronounced on conclusion of the hearing)
Case laws, Decisions, Judgements, O .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X