9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 736X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... HELD THAT:- This Bench in M/S. ABC CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD. [ 2018 (2) TMI 1114 - CESTAT CHENNAI ] has, after following the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX VERSUS M/S. SANGAMITRA SERVICES AGENCY [ 2013 (7) TMI 862 - MADRAS HIGH COURT ], set aside the demand, holding that it can be seen from the advertisement charges, which was incurred to b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise Service Tax (Appeals), Chennai. 2. Brief facts leading to the present dispute are that the appellant is rendering manpower recruitment or supply agency service. It is the case of the Revenue that on verification of accounts of the appellant, it appeared to them that the appellant had received Rs.11,86,998/- towards reimbursement of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s as proposed in the Show Cause Notice. 5. Aggrieved by the above demand, it appears that the appellant preferred an appeal before the first appellate authority, who vide impugned Order-in-Appeal No. 364/2013 (MST) dated 20.12.2013 having confirmed the demand of Service Tax, but however, recalculating the same at Rs.1,30,574/-, the present appeal has been filed before this forum. 6. Heard Ms ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , after hearing both sides, that this Bench in its Final Order dated 04.12.2017 (supra) has, after following the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Service Tax v. Sangamitra Services Agency [2014 (33) S.T.R. 137 (Mad.)], set aside the demand. The relevant observation of this Bench reads as under: - 5. The issue is whether the amount of Rs. 3,39,539/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sequential relief if any, to the appellants. 12. In view of the above, we find the assertion of the Ld. Advocate to be true and that the issue is no more res integra since the same has been decided in the appellant's own case for a different period by this very Bench. Further, the Revenue has also not made out any case for deviating from the above order. 13. Hence, following the above ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
