2021 (9) TMI 416

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ection 75 of Finance Act, 1994, and imposition of like amount as penalty under section 78 of Finance Act, 1994. The appellant is engaged in finishing of 'castings' manufactured by M/s Ghatge Patil Industries Ltd against work orders issued by the latter. 2. Learned Counsel, narrating the background of the demand, informs that appellant installed machinery for 'shot blasting' at the premises of the principal manufacturer and that three combinations of operations had been undertaken by them - by working these machines deploying labour on their rolls, by their employees working on machines installed by the principal manufacturer and by undertaking operations on premises for which they were charged by the principal manufacturer. It was also i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....iew that the adjudged demands confirmed on the appellant cannot be sustained.' and in Aditya Enterprises v. Commissioner of Customs & Central  Excise, Meerut - II [2020 (35) GSTL 406 (Tri.-Del.)] which held that '7. From the perusal of the copy of the agreement and copy of the bills on record, I find that the appellant has entered into an agreement for execution of various works for the principal - CPP. The payment for such work is based on the volume of the work executed and not according to the number of workmen deployed by the appellant. 8. We further find that such facts have been recorded in the impugned order-in-original wherein the Ld. Commissioner has taken notice of the agreement and the rates for various ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hat '9. Further, no liability can be fastened on an assessee for the same work, done in the past only for the reason that in the present or future point of time, the assessee under compulsion by the principal, started paying service tax. Under the facts and circumstances, we find that there is no case of any contumacious conduct, suppression or falsification of records on the part of the appellant. Further, whatever service tax the appellant would have paid was available to the principal - CPP as the Cenvat credit, as they have discharged central excise liability for their manufactured goods - paper/paper pulp. Thus, we hold that extended period is not invocable.' in the context of the submission that mere discharge of tax liabi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ficed to establish that they are in the business of supplying manpower to the principal manufacturer. It was further contended that several of the work-orders are not based on 'piece-rate' as claimed by the appellant. It is also a submission that, notwithstanding the terms of the 'work orders', performance contracted by mutual agreement was comprehended by the recipient as 'supply of manpower service', as evidenced by discharge of tax liability on a service which, while continuing after 1st July 2013, was, as one of the exceptions to the negative list regime, enumerated specifically to bifurcate obligation of tax payment. As far as the acceptance of the orders dropping the proceedings on demand for period after 2013, he submits that, in the....