TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (5) TMI 1026
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the case was earlier listed on 09.11.2016, 30.11.2016 and 20.02.2017 and there was no representation of the appellant. We also note that even during the hearing of stay application on 18.06.2012, none appeared on behalf of the appellant. Accordingly, we proceed to decide the appeal based on the appeal records and with the assistance of ld. A.R. 3. The appellant is a labour contractor and the dispute in the present appeal relates to the service tax liability in respect of supply of manpower by the appellant to M/s.Rajath Ispat Pvt. Ltd., Raigarh. Upon audit of the accounts of the said manufacturing unit, the Department felt that the appellants are liable to service tax, Proceedings were initiated, which resulted in the Order dated 18.02.2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y of Manpower Recruitment Agency in terms of Section 65 (68) of Finance Act, 1994. We note that the said provision defines manpower recruitment and supply service as 'any person engaged in providing any service directly or indirectly, in any manner for recruitment or supply of manpower, temporarily or otherwise to his client." The taxable service is further defined in Section 65 (105) (k) to mean any service, provided or to be provided to a client by a manpower recruitment or supply agency in relation to the recruitment or supply of manpower temporarily or otherwise in any manner. In this connection, we have perused the findings in the impugned order. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) recorded as below:- "5.1 In the instant case I find ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ervice Tax amounting to Rs. 9,10,213/- to be recovered from the Appellant alongwith interest in terms of Section 73 and Section 75 of the Finance Act,1994, Held accordingly. 5.2 Further I find that, the Appellant during the relevant period had rendered services which are made taxable w.e.f 16.06.2005 but they neither obtained Registration nor discharged service Tax and also not filed the service tax returns. In this manner they have knowingly suppressed this fact from the department with an intent to evade payment Service Tax. Further I find that, they have deposited service tax amounting to Rs. 9,25,651/-only after the issue was raised by the Audit which is much after the due date of payment which amply proves malafide on ....