9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 1063X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and requires to be set aside - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Service Tax Appeal No. 42152/2013 with Service Tax Appeal No. 40194/2014-40197/2014, Service Tax Appeal No. 42650/2014, Service Tax Appeal No. 41449-41450/2015, Service Tax Appeal No. 41820/2015 and Service Tax Appeal No. 41822/2015 - Final Order Nos. 41762-41771 / 2021 - Dated:- 23-8-2021 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) and Shri P. Venkata Subba Rao, Member (Technical) Shri N. Viswanathan, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Arul C. Durairaj, Superintendent (AR) for the Respondent ORDER The issue involved in all these appeals being the same, they are heard together and are disposed by this common order. 2. The appellants were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant is responsible for defect in the works done and appellants have to compensate the company or the customer, as the case may be, for any defect in the work done. All these clauses in the agreement would go to show that the appellant was not a supplier of manpower but only an independent contractor for job works. 4. He submitted that in the appellants own case, for different period, the Tribunal has set aside the demand holding that the said services would not amount to manpower supply service. For the period upto 2012, the appellant is not liable to pay service tax on the said services and the demand along with interest and the penalty is required to be set aside. The demand in these appeals are prior to 1.7.2012 (before the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ST/41820/2015 G. Ramakrishnan 2,82,978/- 4/2011 to 6/2012 10. ST/41822/2015 P. Kannusamy 2,52,185/- 4/2011 to 6/2012 5. The ld. AR Shri Arul C. Durairaj appeared for the department and supported the findings in the impugned order. 6. Heard both sides. 7. The issue was analysed in the appeals filed earlier by these appellants and the Tribunal vide Final Order No. 40359 to 40367/2019 dated 19.2.2019 holding that the activity undertaken by the appellants cannot fall under the category of manpower supply service. The relevant paragraph is as under:- 6. Heard both sides. The iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Contractor. 12. The Company will not retain any control, supervision or the manner of the discharge, dismissal or retrenchment or re- 6 Appeal Nos.ST/40570-40575, 40577,40996,40997/2013 employment of the workers engaged /employed by the Contractor. ... 14. The Contractor will obtain license under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act according to the number of workers engaged by him by depositing the fees and complying with the formalities. He will also seek the renewal of the contract at or before the expiry of the license. On perusal of the preamble of the agreement itself it is seen that appellant is an independent contractor appointed for executing work that are entrusted to him by TAFE. So also, at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r persons supplied. There being so, the conclusions that have been arrived by lower authorities can at best be termed as presumptive without any evidential or legal basis. The decision relied by Ld. AR is not on facts. The decision relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for appellants especially that of the decision in the case of Bhagyashree Enterprises (supra) covers the issue under consideration. Following the same, we are of the considered view that demand cannot sustain. Impugned orders are set aside. Appeals are allowed with consequential benefits, if any, as per law. 8. Following the said decision, we are of the view that the demand for the period prior to 2012 cannot sustain and requires to be set aside which we hereby do. The impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
