9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 738X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learly indicate that the appellant is supplying labour and is getting paid for the supply of the labour in terms of the minimum wages, that portion of the demand needs to be upheld. The calculations of the correct tax liability needs to be reworked/requantified by the adjudicating authority on this issue by extending the benefit of cum tax liability. The service tax liability on this portion on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s case is regarding confirmation of demand of the tax liability under the category of 'manpower recruitment and supply agency services'. The adjudicating authority has confirmed the demands for the period 2005-06 to 2008-09. 4. It is the case of the appellant that they functioned under various contracts wherein lump sum contracts are awarded to them for carrying out specific work. Few contracts w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is issued on 25.3.2011 while the demands have been confirmed from 2005 onwards. In our view, the provisions of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 mandates recovery of the tax not paid/short paid for a period upto five years by invoking extended period. The show cause notice dated 25.3.2011 definitely cannot demand service tax liability for the period prior to 25.3.2006. To that extent, any deman ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... portion on the appellant is upheld with interest liability. Since the appellant has not discharged the tax liability for the entire period, the provisions of Section 78 also gets attracted and the penalty amount will be equal to the tax liability on requantification of the demand by the lower authorities.
7. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
(Pronounced in Court) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
