9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 90X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a, Deputy Commissioner (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Per : Ramesh Nair The issue involved in the present case is that, whether the appellant is required to pay service tax under Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency services. 2. None appeared on behalf of the appellant however, a letter dated 04.12.2013 is placed in the filed wherein the Counsel for the appellant requested for decision the cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er bonafide belief that the appellant being an individual, a labour contractor does not fall under the term 'Commercial concern' and therefore not liable to pay service tax. The service recipient M/s. Panchmahal Steel Limited also advised that the appellant being an individual, is not liable to pay service tax. It is their submission that appellant, before issuance of show cause notice paid the en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (h) Prince Thermal India Pvt. Ltd vs. CCE - 2013 (30) STR 394 (Tri.) (i) CCE vs. Global Software Solutions (P) Ltd - 2011 (24) STR 707 (Tri.) 3. Shri K.J. Kinariwala, ld. Deputy Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterated the findings of the impugned order. He submits that it cannot be said that appellant was ignorant about the taxability of the services. In fact, the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herefore, the reasons stated by the appellant that as per advice of their service recipient they were under bonafide belief that the services are not taxable, do not appears to be satisfactory. As regards the judgments relied upon by the appellant, we are of the view that ingredients required for imposition of penalty under Section 78 are based on the facts of each case. Therefore, considering the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
