2018 (9) TMI 260

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Singh (Advocate) for Appellant Shri Rajeev Ranjan (Addl. Commr.) AR for Respondent ORDER Per: Anil G. Shakkarwar Present appeal is directed against Order-in-Original No. KNP-EXCUS-000-COM-020-14-15 dated 25.11.2014 passed by Commissioner, Central Excise and Service Tax, Kanpur. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants were providing Security Agency Service and Man Power Recruitmen....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ressed taxable value and short paid service tax for the period from 2009-10 to 2011-12. Therefore, through the said show cause notice appellant were called upon as to why service tax amounting to Rs. 2.18 crores should not be recovered from them under proviso to sub Section (1) of Section 73 of Finance Act, 1994 under the category of Man Power recruitment or Supply Agency services. Further another....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ency services. He relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Security Guards Board vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane-II reported at 2017 (51) STR 51 (Tri.-Mumbai). Further he has relied on the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Intercontinental Consultants & Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. reported at 2018 (10) GSTL 401 (S.C.). He further contended that....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....re us. We find from Para 56 of the impugned Order-in-Original that appellant did not submit any defence reply before the Original Authority. From Para 57 of the impugned order we note that though appellant were provided with opportunity to be heard, the appellant did not appear before the Original Authority. We, therefore, note that the Original Authority did not take into consideration any defenc....