9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 540X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Respondent. ORDER The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 19-5-2014 whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal of the appellant. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant was engaged in rendering manpower recruitment agency service without registering with the department as service tax provider. As the appellant had not discharged the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e tax and therefore extended period of demand under proviso to Section 73(1) was invoked. The original authority confirmed the demand and aggrieved by the order, the appellant filed the appeal before the Commissioner and the Commissioner also rejected the appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order imposing pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d providing this service from 1-5-2008 only and therefore he was not aware that the services rendered by him is taxable and as soon as it was pointed out by the Department, the appellant deposited the service tax along with interest before the issue of show cause notice. He further submitted that this is not the case where the appellant has wilfully abstained from paying the service tax. The appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C.)]. 4. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the records, I find that the appellant has started supplying the manpower from 1-5-2008 and at that time this service was not taxable and this service was made taxable with effect from 16-5-2008 and therefore the appellant was not aware that his activity is taxable service. Further when the department on veri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
