9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 690X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Since adequate proof regarding consideration retained by the applicant is not brought on record, we consider it proper to grant waiver of pre-deposit of dues arising from the impugned order for admission of appeal following the earlier order given by this Tribunal. We also note that the order passed by the Bombay Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Samarth Sevabhavi Trust (2011 (4) TMI 918 - CESTAT, MUMBAI) was in a different set of facts. We note that applicant therein was not a sugar factory. The applicant therein was engaged in the business of organizing labourers making it available to the farmer for harvesting sugar cane and also in transportation of sugarcane to the sugar factory and they were receiving consideration for the serv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iver of pre-deposit of dues arising out of the impugned order for admission of appeal. 3. Arguing for the applicant, the learned advocate submits that the labourers were not employees of the applicant-company. They were only maintaining a data base of such labourers and their gang leaders and getting in touch with gang leaders whenever farmers require the services of labourers for cane harvesting. They submit that they have not retained any amount out of the charges paid to the labourers. Thus, it is their contention that they have not provided any service of man power supply and if at all any service in relation to supply of man power was done by them, they have not received any consideration for such service. Therefore, he submits that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ght on record, we consider it proper to grant waiver of pre-deposit of dues arising from the impugned order for admission of appeal following the earlier order given by this Tribunal. We also note that the order passed by the Bombay Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Samarth Sevabhavi Trust (supra) was in a different set of facts. We note that applicant therein was not a sugar factory. The applicant therein was engaged in the business of organizing labourers making it available to the farmer for harvesting sugar cane and also in transportation of sugarcane to the sugar factory and they were receiving consideration for the services. Therefore, we feel that the order passed in that case is not applicable in the facts of the present case. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
