9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 398X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ie case regarding non-chargeability of Service Tax Cargo Handling Services within the factory premises of M/s.TCL - Revenue has not brought out any evidence to the effect that man-power by numbers have been provided by the appellants to M/s. TCL to work under the supervision and control of M/s.TCL - The other contentions regarding manufacture of salt by appellants also need deeper considerations which can be done only at the time of final hearing – stay granted. - ST/11010/2013 - - - Dated:- 25-7-2013 - M V Ravindran And H K Thakur, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Jigar Shah, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri K Sivakumar, AR PER : H K Thakur These stay applications have been filed by the appellants against the Order in Original, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relied upon the following case laws: (i) S.S. Associates [2010 (19) STR 438 (Tri.-Bang.) (ii) Divya Enterprises (2010 (18) STR 370 (Tri.-Bang.) 2.2. It was further argued by Shri Jigar Shah (Advocate) that appellants have not provided any management, maintenance or repair services and supply of tangible goods services to M/s.TCL. He further argued that Commissioner has not separately calculated or determined as to how much service tax with respect to each service tax has been confirmed by him. That as per letter dated 17/01/2008 of M/s.TCL, reproduced in para 5.3 of the adjudication order, the following works have to be performed by the appellants: "5.3. On perusal of one more letter REF No.PSD/2007-08/81/072 dated 17/01/20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... c. In the show cause notice certain figures have been taken from the profit and loss account of the appellants and demands have been made without any segregation of service-wise amounts of services provided for demanding duty. It was held by CESTAT, Bangalore, in the case of United Telecoms Ltd. vs. Commissioner,. Service Tax, Hyderabad [2011 (22) STR 571 (Tri.-Bang.)] that in the absence of proposal in the show cause notice as to the liability of the assessee under the precise provision the demand cannot be held to be sustainable. Further, in view of the relied upon judgment in the case of Modi Construction Co. vs. CCE, Ranchi [2008 (12) STR 34 (Tri.-Kolkata)] and CCE, Ranchi vs. Modi Construction Co. [2011 (23) STR 6 (Jhar.)] appellants h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
