TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (6) TMI 1363
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce dt. 3.12.2007 so issued, proposed demand of an amount of Rs. 8,15,145/- with interest and imposition of penalties under various provisions of law. In adjudication, original authority confirmed the tax demand proposed with interest and also imposed penalties under Section 76, 77 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. In appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order dt. 27.08.2010 set aside the penalties imposed under Section 76 & 77 of the Act, however upheld the remaining order of original authority. Aggrieved, appellants have filed this appeal. 2. Today when the matter came up for hearing, on behalf of the appellant Ld. Consultant Shri N.K. Bharathkumar made oral and written submissions which can be broadly summarized as under : i) Appel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....work. However such man power is not at the disposal or effective control of the service recipient during the period of contract, but such control is still with the appellants themselves. The nature of services provided cannot then be brought within the fold of Man Power Supply Service. This is the very clarification given by the CBEC in their circular dt. 15.12.2015, relied upon by Ld. Consultant. 5.3 Although Ld. A.R has argued that appellant had not brought up this argument before the lower authorities, it must be kept in mind that the said Board's circular has been issued only after the passing of the impugned order. In any case, appellant is entitled to take a legal plea at any point of time. 5.4 We also find that the decisions relied....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....also, the consideration is not fixed on the basis of hours of work. The scope of the work is to execute bins filing, bagging, stitching, handling and dispatch of finished product on round the clock basis. The rates are fixed on tonnage basis. Thus it is seen from the contract that the work involves bagging and shipping of finished products. There is nothing in the contract to show that the appellant has any obligation to supply man power. Instead the contract speaks of execution of work. The employees are under the control and supervision of appellants for executing the work and not under the supervision of MFL. The appellant has discharged the statutory obligations of his workers which shows that they worked on behalf of appellant. The con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8 (Tri.-Chen.). 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 DR on the other hand, would draw our attention to the findings recorded by the adjudicating authority. He would submit that as regards the service tax liability on the services rendered to KLL, appellant herein were provided space, machinery, electricity and tools required for completing the job work of the wheels. He would submit that undoubtedly appellant have undertaken the job work activity in a reg....