9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 375X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erables in respect of any contract - there was shortage of even man-hours, billing were deducted proportionately - the companies to whom the persons were deputed were themselves software developers – Services supplied to SEZ had not been supported by enough documentary evidence - it was a clear case of suppression – relying upon Diksha Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bangalore [ 2010 (10) TMI 491 - CESTAT, BANGALORE]. Waiver of pre-deposit – 50 Lakhs were ordered to be submitted as pre-deposit – rest of the duty waived till the disposal – stay granted partly. - ST/715/2010 - - - Dated:- 20-6-2013 - SHRI. P.K. DAS AND SHRI. MATHEW JOHN, JJ. For the Appellant: Shri G. Natarajan, Advocate For the Respondent: Shri K.S.V.V. Prasa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... applicant submitted that the applicant was undertaking software development as required by the companies like Infosys and TCS and took us through the various provisions of the contract to demonstrate that the responsibilities of the applicant did not end with supply of manpower but they were responsible for software related responsibilities. So according to him, though the applicants manpower was working at the site of other major software companies, the deliverables of the employees was the responsibility of the applicant and that being the case it should be considered as a software development and not a case of manpower supply. He also pleads that the demand is partly barred by limitation as far as show-cause notice dated 10.10.2008 is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompanies cannot be accepted unless proved with better evidence. The overall facts of the case and the terms of the contract demonstrate that this was a case of manpower supply and therefore taxable from 16.6.2005. He pointed out that an appeal involving similar contracts between Future Focus Infotech Ltd. and Infosys/TCS were considered by this Tribunal and the appeal was finally disposed of in favor of Revenue, deciding that it was only a case of manpower supply. 6. He further points out that the argument regarding supply to SEZ has not been supported by enough documentary evidence before the adjudicating authority and that is the reason why the adjudicating authority did not extend the exemption. Further, the learned AR submits that it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
