2016 (11) TMI 936

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in order-in-original no. P.I/COMMR/ST/06/2010 dated 31^st August 2010 of Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune I, is in appeal before us. Revenue, aggrieved by the impugned order, is also in appeal. Both are disposed off by this common order. 2. The appeal of Revenue contests the re-classification of the service instead of confirming the noticee as provider of 'manpower recruitment and supply service' for the period from 2005-06 to 2008 as alleged in the show cause notice and the non-imposition of penalty after having confirmed the demand for the extended period. 3. The appeal of Ramanlal M Prajapati is grounded in the disregard of its submissions of non-taxability of consideration in the hands of sub-contractor when principal contrac....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....h escapement required both entities to render the same service as per the circular of Central Board of Excise & Customs. Though the submission of re-classification was accepted, the corollary of consequent escapement was not acceded to in the impugned order. 8. It is observed that the adjudicating authority has not tendered any reasons for rejecting the classification proposed in the show cause notice. That is a patent lacuna in the impugned order to the extent that the agreement between the noticee and M/s Shapoorji Pallonji & Co. Ltd in the context was not subject to scrutiny for ascertaining conformity with the description of the taxable service in section 65 (105) (k) of Finance Act, 1994. 9. Further, having trifurcated the taxabl....