9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 299X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the lumsum amount which has been charged by the appellant as for services rendered cannot be classified as man power supply agency as the same has been decided in K. Damodarareddy (supra) and Ritesh Enterprises (2009 (9) TMI 386 - CESTAT, BANGALORE). - Prima facie case is in favor of assessee – Stay granted. - ST/10434-10437/2013 - M/12235 TO 12238/WZB/AHD/2013 - Dated:- 3-5-2013 - M V Ravindran And H K Thakur, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri P M Dave, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri P N Sarvaiya, Astt. Commissioner (AR) PER : M V Ravindran All these Stay Petitions are directed against Order-in-Original No.33 to 36/BVR/Commissioner/2012, dt.19.12.2012, vide which the adjudicating authority has held that M/s Shri Bileshwar Kha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne from the value paid by them to the farmers of the cost of sugarcane procured from them. It is his submission that the Revenue is seeking to charge tax on this amount of Rs.300/- under the category of man power supply agency service. He would draw our attention to the bills raised by the appellant. It is his submission that the appellant herein is not supplying any labour but is charging an amount as lumsum amount. He would submit that an identical issue has been decided by the Bench in the case of K. Damodarareddy - 2010 (19) STR 593 (Tri-Bang), and held that when there are multiple services included and the charges are lumsum charges, it could not be covered under the category of man power recruitment or supply agency services. He would ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he invoices which are raised by the appellant (as reproduced in the Order-in-Original), the said invoices indicate that the appellant No.1 herein is charging lumsum amount of Rs.300/- per metric tonne for the help provided by them for cutting, loading and unloading of sugarcane from the fields of farmers. We find that this lumsum amount which has been charged by the appellant as for services rendered was before the Bench of this Tribunal in the case of K. Damodarareddy (supra) and Ritesh Enterprises (supra). We find that in both these cases, the issue involved was identical as to the only difference is that in those cases, it was the question of bagging of cement, loading and unloading of the cement. 5. We find that the issue, prima facie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
