9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 907X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (AR) ORDER Per: P.G. Chacko; This application filed by the appellant seeks waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of the adjudged dues which include service tax of Rs. 28,22,916/- demanded by the revisionary authority for the period from 16.06.2005 to 30.09.2006 under the head Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service. On a perusal of the records, we find that the appellant h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd imposing equal amount of penalty on them besides other penalties. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the service rendered by them was actually in the nature of Cleaning Service which was rendered for the upkeep of the factory or the premises of the clients including hospitals. It is submitted that this claim of the assessee was not considered at all by the revisionary author ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... agreements as employees of the appellant and their wages were paid by the clients and subsequently reimbursed. On these facts, the learned Additional Commissioner (AR) claims a strong case for the Revenue and opposes the present application. He has also vehemently contested the plea of limitation raised by the counsel. 4. After considering the submissions, we have not found prima facie case for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant cannot claim a good case against the demand of service tax under the aforesaid head. The plea of limitation is also weak. Against the original show-cause notice, the party failed to raise this plea. The impugned order also does not disclose any plea of limitation having meaningfully been raised by the party. The original show-cause notice and the revisionary show-cause notice raised requisite ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
