2025 (2) TMI 590

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Shri Krati Singh, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Raman Mittal, Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER S. S. GARG : The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 23.12.2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), whereby the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the demand of service tax of Rs. 81,282/- along with equal penalty under Section 78 of the F....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed penalty under Section 77 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) vide his Order-in-Appeal partially accepted the appeal by confirming the demand of Rs. 81,282/- along with interest and penalty. Hence, the present appeal. 3. As appellant has pleaded his inability to engage a counsel on account of his poor con....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he further submits that the appellant does not fall in the definition of Manpower Recruitment Agency Services as provided in Section 65(68) which is reproduced herein below:- "manpower recruitment or supply agency" means any person engaged in providing any service, directly or indirectly, in any manner for recruitment or supply of manpower, temporarily or otherwise, to any person. 4.2 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e labour on daily basis and also for loading & unloading to Markfed but he does not fall under the definition of Manpower Recruitment Agency as provided in Section 65(68) of the Finance Act, 1994 and therefore not liable to pay any service tax on the said charges. 7. Further, we find that the impugned order is beyond the show cause notice and the Order-in-Original because in the show cause noti....