AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (4) TMI 811
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d as their service charges. The appellants have recovered the wages/salary to be paid to the manpower supplied by them from the service recipient and paid to the man power. The appellants have treated the wages/ salary as reimbursable expenses. The appellants have discharged the service tax on the aforesaid 10% service charges. 1.2 A show cause notice dated 19.05.2011 was issued to the appellants demanding the service tax for the period 2005-06 to 2009-10 on the ground that the appellants were required to pay service tax on the gross value including the wages/salary paid to the manpower so supplied. The show cause notice calculated the demand of service tax including the wages/ salary paid to the man power so supplied. The show cause notic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rvices provided by them, whereas the same is remuneration earned by the labourers by providing their service to the respective company. The service of appellant is limited to providing the man power to the company for which they are paid 10% commission which is the consideration against the service provided by the appellant, therefore, in terms of Section 67 also the entire amount i.e. Commission, Salary and Wages cannot be alleged as the gross value chargeable to service tax. He submits that the issue is settled in favour of the appellant in the following judgment: Malabar Management Services reported in 2009 (9) STR 483 (Tri. Chennai).This decision has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2019 (22) GSTL J56 (SC). 2.1 He ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. Therefore, there cannot be any suppression of facts on the part of the appellant. In this submission he placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Mega Trends Advertising Ltd. reported in 2020 (38) GSTL 57(Tri. ALL) 2.4 As regard penalties imposed under both the section 76 and 78, he submits that the issue has been settled by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Raval Trading Co. reported in 2016 (42) STR 210 (Guj.) wherein, the Hon'ble High Court has held that penalty in both the section cannot be imposed. The penalty under section 76 of Finance Act, 1994 cannot be imposed when the penalty imposed under section 78. He further submits that the Authorized Representative placed reliance on circulars of the 2005 which is contr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Del)- J&J Enterprises Vs. CCE, Raipur 7. 2016 (42) STR 561 (Tri- All)- Laxmi Construction Vs. CCE, Allahabad 8. 2014 (34) STR 225 (Tri- Del)- Neelav Jaiswal & Brothers Vs. CCE, Allahabad 9. 2020(37) GSTL 189 (Tri- Ahmd)- CCE , Surat Vs. Jalaram Security Services. 10. 2019 (369) ELT 1338 (Tri.- Ahmd)- Bhagwati Spherocast P Ltd Vs. CCE , Ahmedabad -II 11.2007 STR 397 (Tri.- Bang)- Renu Singh & Co Vs. CCE, Hyderabad 12. 2007(7) STR 230 (Tri.- Bang)- KK Appachan Vs. CCE, Palakkad 13. 2008 (12) STR 710 (Tri.- Ahmd)- Shakti Motors Vs. CST, Ahmedabad 4. We have heard both the sides and perused the records. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both the sides and detail scrutiny of the records we are of the view that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ies considering the limitation aspects observed as under: "6. From the above facts it could very well be seen that the assessee had a decision in his favour and therefore it was reasonable on its part to hold a belief that the Cenvat credit was available. It was only subsequently that the issue came to be decided against him. It was hardly a relevant aspect. The assessee acted bona fide and in honest belief that Cenvat credit was available. In the facts and circumstances, no intention could be ascribed on the part of the assessee to evade the duty or suppress any fact. In that view, there was no justification in invoking the longer period of limitation beyond the normal period as the conditions therefore were not satisfied. The question f....