2009 (7) TMI 521

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... S. Chand for the Appellant. Ms. Ashmita Nayak for the Respondent. ORDER D.N. Panda, Judicial Member - Ld. DR Shri Chand submits that Revenue has come in appeal challenging the order passed by the Learned Commissioner (Appeals). That authority held that the respondent was not providing taxable service under the category of Manpower Recruitment Agency and Cargo Handling for which the demand ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ngs of the Ld. adjudicating authority for which the adjudication order is required to be restored. Ld. DR also submits that when the bills were submitted by the respondent to M/s. Balkrishna Inds. Ltd., that industry has paid service tax to the respondent. 3. Ld. Counsel Ms. Ashmita Nayak submits that when a particular category of service was not liable to tax before 16-6-2005, that should not ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ity has noticed that the gross value received to the tune of Rs. 15,66,569 relating to supply of manpower related to the period prior to 16-6-2005. This aspect has been settled by him in para 7.1 of the appellate order. When we notice that supply of manpower was taxed for a period when the law did not provide a levy for the same, the appellant cannot be asked to pay taxes under such category of ma....