9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 776X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es of an individual, assessee cannot be said to have provided Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Services. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Cross Application No. ST/CROSS/70052/2015 in Appeal No. ST/52960/2015-CU[DB] - FINAL ORDER NO 70046/2019 - Dated:- 10-1-2019 - Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Shri Mohd Altaf (Assistant Commissioner) AR for Appellant Absent for Respondent ORDER Per: Archana Wadhwa Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Revenue has filed the present appeal. We have heard learned AR Shri Mohd Altaf, Assistant Commissioner appearing for the Revenue. Nobody appeared for the respondent. 2. As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as per the cleaning plan prepared by them and approved by the proper Officer of the Nagar Nigam, through the workers/sweepers engaged by the assessee with equipments as required by Nagar Nigam. Further he observed that in terms of the said agreements, all the responsibilities to get the work done from workers/sweepers is on the contractor i.e., assessee failing which they shall be penalized by way of deduction of amount from the bills submitted by them. The Appellate Authority also took into consideration the certificate issued by the Nagar Nigam certifying that the entire work is being executed in the Nagar Nigam, through contractors with required labour/workmen by them under the agreement, who are responsible to get all the work execu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e not contractual workers employed by them. As such by relying upon the Tribunal s decision in the case of Samarth Sevabhavi Trust vs. CCE, Aurangabad reported at 2014 (36) S.T.R. 83 (Tri. Mumbai), he held in favour of the assessee. He also referred to various other decisions like Divya Enterprises vs. CCE reported at 2019 (19) S.T.R. 370 (Tri.-Bang.) and Ritesh Enterprises vs. CCE Bangalore reported at 2010 (18) S.T.R. (Tri.-Bang.). 8. As against the above findings of Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue has not advanced any evidence to reflect upon the fact that the assessee was actually supplying the Manpower to Nagar Nigam. The various contracts and agreements entered by the respondents with Nagar Nigam clearly show that the work requir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
