9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1422X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... axable from 16.05.08 whereas manpower supply was taxable from the year 2005 itself. The applicant had not paid the service tax for the period October, 2007 to March, 2008, considering that the service rendered under the contract was not man power supply. The Revenue issued show cause notice demanding service tax on the services for the said period under the category of man power supply and on adjudication, an amount of Rs. 1,45,96,610/- stands confirmed against the applicant along with interest and penalties. Aggrieved by the said order of the Commissioner, the applicant has filed an appeal before the Tribunal along with an application for waiver of pre-deposit of dues for admission of appeal, which is being considered in this proceeding. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the task orders but he relied upon the previous order of the Tribunal and therefore the order is erroneous and he requests that the appeal may be admitted without any pre-deposit. 3. The Ld. Counsel also submits that the total demand of Rs. 1.46 Crores needs to be reduced because about 24 lakhs is on account of tax on the services rendered to units in SEZ and about Rs. 16 lakhs will accrue as if cum-tax benefit is given to them. 4. Opposing the prayer, the Ld. AR submits that the contract based on which the present demand is confirmed is same as the one in respect of which appeal has been dismissed by the Tribunal in the previous order thus resulting in upholding of the demand. In that case also the Tribunal had scrutinized the terms of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ount was only Rs. 10 lakhs and that too without producing any evidence. Such worksheets which were not scrutinized by the Commissioner cannot be considered by Tribunal at this stage. 5. We have considered the arguments on both sides. We, prima facie find strong merit in the argument of the Ld. AR and we are not in agreement with the Ld. Counsel that the two different type orders (in the cases of Prime Focus and Cognizant Technology) were passed by the Tribunal on the same day (03-03-2010) without application of mind. As on date on almost the very same facts, the issue stands decided against the applicant by the Tribunal. 6. On perusal of the records we find that the applicant has placed some additional documents which may be relevant for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
