9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 903X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fact whether the labour provided by the appellant have carried out the loading and unloading or any other work but when as per contract the appellant were supposed to provide the manpower service, the activity clearly qualified as Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agency Service and therefore on this count the demand is clearly sustainable. Levy of service tax - house rent charges reimbursed by client - HELD THAT:- The recipient have arranged such accommodation on behalf of the company and on receiving the sum as reimbursement, As per contract dated 30.07.2010 the appellant were to pay salary/ food/ accommodation to the worker engaged in the work. As per these terms, the appellant themselves have to incur the expenditure for all these it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een imposed penalty under section 76 and 78 simultaneously. It is settled legal position by the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of M/S RAVAL TRADING COMPANY VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX [ 2016 (2) TMI 172 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] that the penalty under Section 76 and 78 cannot be imposed simultaneously. Accordingly, the penalty under section 78 is not imposable also on this principle. The appeal is partly allowed. - MR. RAMESH NAIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. C.L MAHAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) None appeared for the Appellant Shri Ajay Kumar Samota, Superintendent (AR) for the Respondent ORDER As per the impugned order the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the service tax demand of Rs.36,00,875 for the peri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same is not sustainable. 4.1 As regard the demand of service tax of Rs. 51,126/- it is the submission of the appellant that this is towards house rent charges which was reimbursed by their customers. It is his submission that the Assistant Commissioner as well as the Commissioner (Appeals) have failed to recognize that the facility of residence was provided to the workers at the remote site by the contractors which was the responsibility of the contractee and thereby will not be liable to levy of tax. These charges is nothing but the reimbursement during the provision of service therefore, the same is not taxable. 4.2 As regard the service tax amount of Rs. 73,053/- it is the submission of the appellant that this is not payable as due ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x of RS. 51,126/-, we find that as per the contract the service recipient M/s. Punj Lloyds undertook to provide residence to the worker at the site since the appellant could not provide such accommodation at site. The recipient have arranged such accommodation on behalf of the company and on receiving the sum as reimbursement, As per contract dated 30.07.2010 the appellant were to pay salary/ food/ accommodation to the worker engaged in the work. As per these terms, the appellant themselves have to incur the expenditure for all these items including accommodation of the workers and on the turn key working the appellant is supposed to receive the service charges. Therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant have incurred the expenses on b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
