2017 (10) TMI 1439

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . As the issue involved in the present matter is covered by the order of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in CCE vs Computer Sciences Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. [2014 (11) TMI 125 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT], hence the service tax could not be levied on the impugned amount. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Shri Atul Gupta, Advocate, for Appellant Shri Rajeev Ranjan, Joint Commissioner (AR), for Respondent ORDER Per: Anil Choudhary The above stated appeal is arising out of impugned Order-in-Original No.85/Commissioner/Noida/2012-13 dated 31/03/2013 passed by Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Noida. 2. The brief f .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e tax on the amount which was paid by the appellant to such employees excluding the above referred expenses incurred such as rent etc. for the period from 2006-07 to 2011-12. 5. An audit was conducted by the department during the period 20/04/2012 to 18/05/2012 and based on such audit, an objection was raised regarding payment of service tax on the expenses incurred for such employees. Thereafter, a show cause notice bearing C. No. V(15Adj./Noida/India Yamaha/167/12 dated 27/09/2012 was issued to the appellant proposing to recover an amount of ₹ 8,04,26,216/- alongwith interest for the period 2007-08 to 2011-12 on account of short payment of service tax due on receipt of Manpower Supply and Recruitment Services received from the Hold .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... R 10,000 under Section 77 of the Finance Act was also imposed. Aggrieved by the same, appellant is before this Tribunal. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. He has argued that the appellant had an employer - employee relationship as the appellant appointed them and had control and supervision over such expatriate to whom such salary were being paid. The appellant was not paying any amount to the Holding Company in this respect. Therefore, the appellant was not a receiver of Manpower Supply and Recruitment Service from the Holding Company. He further submits that the issued involved in the instant appeal is no longer re integra and is already covered in favour of the appellant by precedent decisions in the matter of Volkswagen I .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X