2017 (3) TMI 786

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and arising out of similar set of facts, the are being disposed of by a common order. 3. The relevant facts that arise for consideration, after filtering out unnecessary details, are the officers of Service Tax Commissionerate on an information visited the premises of the appellants and checked the records. On verification of the records it was noticed that the appellant have collected the service tax from the clients but had not deposited the same to the Government s exchequer in few cases. It is also noticed that appellants were providing manpower to M/s. Kalyani Lemmerz Ltd. (KLL), M/s Caparo Engineering, M/s Tata DLT International and Bosch Chasis. After recording the statements of the Proprietors, show-cause notices were issued for....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....anpower recruitment or supply agency services and is a lumpsum work. He would rely upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Divya Enterprises - 2010 (19) STR 370 (Tri. Bang.) for the said proposition and submit that the same has been following by the Tribunal in various other cases like Ritesh Enterprises - 2010 (18) STR 17 (Tri. Bang.), Future Focus Infotech India (P) Ltd. 2010-TIOL-835-CESTAT-MAD. He would however fairly submits that the amounts need recalculation as the show-cause notice is considering the entire amount received by the appellants in respect of other services also. Hence, he submits that this issue may be remanded back to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration and requantification. 5. Learned D.R. on th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....red by appellants to M/s Caparo Engineering, M/s Tata DLT International and M/s. Bosch Chassis, the same is not disputed by the appellants in the grounds of appeals and have accepted that they have supplied the manpower to these three entities. In our considered view, since the appellants are not contesting the service tax liability of the services rendered to these three companies, we find that the service tax liability, interest thereof needs to be upheld and we do so. Since these service tax liability were not discharged by the appellants, despite being registered with the authorities, we uphold the penalties imposed by the adjudicating authority on the amounts of service tax liability for the services rendered to these three entities. ....