TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 7X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (5) TMI 1223 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] upheld in C.C.E. AND S.T. JAIPUR -I VERSUS NISSIN BRAKE INDIA PVT. LTD. [ 2019 (2) TMI 1630 - SC ORDER] wherein under similar facts and circumstances, the issue was decided in favour of the appellant-assessee. Revenue preferred an appeal before the Hon ble Supreme Court against the order of Tribunal in Nissin Brake India Pvt. Ltd. and by order dated 22/02/2019, Hon ble Supreme court held that it finds no merit in the appeal and was accordingly pleased to dismiss the appeal. Thus, the principle of law laid down in the case of M/s. Volkswagen India (Pvt.) Ltd. and followed in Nissin Brake India Pvt. Ltd. have crystallized and attained finality. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll International Inc shall identify the people and select the employees. d) Honeywell International Inc agrees to second the employees to the appellants for time period. e) The employees seconded to the appellants shall continue to be on the payroll of Honeywell International Inc only for the purpose of continuation of social security/retiral benefits, and for all practical purposes, the appellants shall be the employer. 3. The agreement further stipulates that the employee shall act in accordance with the instructions and directions of the appellants and also all responsibility and risk for work undertaken by the individual will remain with the appellants during the period of secondment. During the Secondment Period, the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equer of the Indian Government under personal income tax. Form 16 as prescribed by the Income tax Rules was issued by the Appellants to the seconded employees. SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE 8. Based on the audit, the appellant was issued show cause notice dated 11.02.2010 proposing to demand Service Tax of ₹ 1,25,40,914/- (Rupees One Crore Twenty Five Lakhs Forty Thousand Nine Hundred and Fourteen only) under the category of Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service in terms of Section 66A read with Rule 2(i)(d)(iv) of the Service Tax Rules 1994 for the period from 2005-06 to 2008-09 (up to December 2008). The appellant filed a detailed reply rebutting all the allegations in the Show Cause Notices followed by which the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ercial concern and has provided the services of Manpower supply in addition to various other services being rendered by him; that it is not a precondition that only a manpower supply agency should supply the Manpower; that any commercial organization/person can supply the manpower and render the manpower supply agency services, in addition to other usual services being rendered by them; 9.5 That the judgment of the CESTAT, Chennai, in the case of M/s. Future Focus Infotech India (P) Ltd., V/s Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai is applicable to the facts of the present case; 9.6 The fact of payment of Income Tax or the dual employment is not the criteria to decide the taxability of a service under the Finance Act; 9.7 Extended per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S.T.L. J171 (S.C) wherein under similar facts and circumstances, the issue was decided in favour of the appellant-assessee. Revenue preferred an appeal before the Hon ble Supreme Court against the order of Tribunal in Nissin Brake India Pvt. Ltd. and by order dated 22/02/2019, Hon ble Supreme court held that it finds no merit in the appeal and was accordingly pleased to dismiss the appeal. Thus, the principle of law laid down in the case of M/s. Volkswagen India (Pvt.) Ltd. (supra) and followed in Nissin Brake India Pvt. Ltd. have cristalized and attained finality. In this view of the matter, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order. Appellant is entitled for consequential benefit in accordance with law. (Order was pronounced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|