9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 245X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uce - Held that:- The appellant is not engaged in the activity of storage of agricultural produce - the benefit as storage of agricultural produce cannot be provided. A part of the demand has also been made against amounts which were reimbursed to the appellant towards expenses incurred. The demand of service Tax on such reimbursible expenses cannot be sustained. Penalties will be chargeable proportionately. Appeal allowed in part. - Appeal No. ST/59315/2013-DB - ST/A/52526/2018-CU[DB] - Dated:- 4-7-2018 - Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) And Ms. Rachna Gupta, Member (Judicial) Ms Priyanka Goel, Advocate for the appellant Sh. G.R. Singh, DR for the Respondent ORDER Per: V. Padmanabhan 1. The presen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een that the amounts received were by way of service charges for storage, warehouse and handling of agricultural produce. Since these activities are outside the purview of man power supply, she submitted that Service Tax demand is not sustainable. Further she argued that there is no justification for demand of Service Tax on the reimbursible expenses since the matter stands decided by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Intercontinental Pvt. Ltd. reported as 2018-TIOL-76-SC-ST. 4. Ld. DR justified the impugned order. He submitted that the appellant has admitted on record, through their reply to Show Cause Notice dated 18/08/2010, that they have been supplying labour to their clients on temporary basis as and when required. Accord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity of documents submitted by the candidate. 7. Since the supply of temporary man power is covered by the above definition, we are of the view that the appellant is liable to discharge the Service Tax under the category. In this connection the Ld. Advocate has placed reliance on the following decisions. 1. Commissioner, Jaipur V/s Nanuram Saini 2018 (6) TMI 586 -CESTAT New Delhi 2. S. S. Associates V/s Commissioner, Bangalore 2010 (19) STR 438 (Tri.- Bang.) 3. Adhikrut Jabti Evam Vasuli Versus CCE ST- Indore 2017 (9) TMI 90 CESTAT New Delhi. 8. But after perusal of the various decisions it is noticed that in these decisions, the demand for Service Tax under the category of Manpower Recruitment or Supply ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
