TMI Blog2010 (10) TMI 492X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch could disclose the quantum of turnover for the previous year of the appellants - In order to justify the claim for exemption under the Notification No. 6/05-S.T., it is necessary to ascertain the quantum of turnover for the previous year - Direct the appellants to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/ - The requirement of pre-deposit of rest of demand under the impugned order including the demand relating to interest and penalty waived. - ST/279/2010 - ST/250/2010(PB) - Dated:- 12-10-2010 - Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar, Shri P. Karthikeyan, REPRESENTED BY : Shri Alok Arora, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri S.R. Meena, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar, President (for the Bench)]. - Heard, the le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mental Representative drawing our attention to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of K.K. Appachan v. CCE, Palakkad reported as [2007 (7) S.T.R. 230 (Tri.-Bang.)] submitted that the services rendered by the appellants are covered by the expression of manpower recruitment and supply agency and the authorities below have arrived at correct findings which justify the impugned order. 3. As regards the contention that the appellants are not covered by expression manpower recruitment and supply agency for the purpose of levy of tax, the authorities below have analysed the agreement dated 6-12-06 and have correctly arrived at the finding that same amount to services within the meaning of said expression, and hence, are covered under the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,003/- after TDS of Rs. 60,554/- through nine cheques during 10-1-07 to 12-6-07, whereas under head Discussion and Findings he has confirmed the demand of service tax on the above amount for the period 1-11-06 to 31-5-07. Further, it is submitted that during the period 23-1-07 to 12-6-07 the appellant have received amount of Rs. 24,70,799/- as per copy of PNB account enclosed herewith. Hence the period of demand as well as quantification is not correct, as such the order is liable to be set aside. The Adjudicating Authority should have taken the amounts correctly as all the details of cheques were available with him and the exemption under Notification No. 6/2005-S.T. should have been granted. Plain reading of the above ground would sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was no proper explanation given regarding the said claim, nor the ground no. 3 in that regard was sought to be substantiated with documentary evidence except stating that a copy of PNB account was being enclosed. But we do not find any statement of fact that all the transactions in relation to the dealings by the appellants were only through the PNB account. Being so, merely because the statement of PNB account was produced that cannot be the whole truth or complete evidence in relation to such a claim and that too at the appellate stage without seeking any leave to produce the additional evidence. For the above reasons we do not find any relevance of the decision in S.S. Associates case to the matter in hand. 4. Taking into consideration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
