9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 222X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... levant agreement say that the agreement/contract entered into with the particular contractor, or any other contractor for that matter, was only for processing and cleaning because I find that all the agreements are similarly worded. The First Appellate Authority holds in respect of two contractors that the agreements/contracts in question were for job work and deletes the tax demand which was raised by holding that the agreements were not for supply of Manpower Services, but retains the tag of Manpower as against job work in respect of the agreement with M/s. Sri Kavery Agency. Undisputedly, the Revenue is not in appeal in respect of the other part of the Order of the First Appellate Authority and therefore, on the very principles of c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... power whereas by virtue of the respective agreements, they only carried on the assigned work on job work basis for which, the materials were supplied by the appellant. This, according to the appellant, is not amenable to Service Tax. 3.2 He also contended that the appellant had entered into similar agreements with different contractors for the same kind of job, but however, the Ld. First Appellate Authority has sustained the demand in respect of M/s. Sri Kavery Agency alone without any reason whatsoever. 4. On the other hand, Shri. K. Veerabhadra Reddy, Ld. AR, supported the findings of the lower authorities. He also referred to the agreement placed in the Appeal Paper Book and the terms thereunder, to contend ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rovident Fund contributions relating to their employees. Besides all works assigned have been carried out at the premises of the assessee (service recipient). Thus the role played by all agencies is only to supply adequate manpower to the premises of the assessee to undertake the job assigned to them for execution. (Emphasis by underlining by me) The above finding is given by the Adjudicating Authority after analysing the agreements of respective dates (with M/s. Sri Kavery Agency, M/s. Karthik Enterprises and M/s. Muthuselvi). 7. I also find from perusal of the Show Cause Notice that even while issuing the Show Cause Notice, the aforesaid (respective) agreements were looked into. I find that o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hange of facts, the impugned order of the First Appellate Authority cannot be sustained since different yardsticks cannot be adopted for identically situated assessees especially when neither Show Cause Notice nor Order-in-Original even whispers about any such dissimilarities. 8.2 There is also no reasoning to accept the contentions of the Revenue that the agreements/contracts entered with the above three contractors are different because, the Show Cause Notice does not allege any such differences and nor is there any finding to this effect by the Adjudicating Authority in the Order-in-Original. 8.3 Further, from perusal of the agreement entered with M/s. Sri Kavery Agency, I find that the same is specific, for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
