2015 (1) TMI 952

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... V Ravindran, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr S Tell, Dy. Commissioner (AR) JUDGEMENT Per: B S V Murthy: Even though different orders are under challenge and appellants are also different, the issue involved is identical and therefore both the appeals are taken together and a common order is passed. 2. Both appellants are employees of the so-called service receivers in this case. Revenue has .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tract labourers; he also submits that no agreement or contract exists between the two employees and the companies; these employees were only discharging the instructions issued by the employer to them to disburse the salary; there is no evidence produced or relied upon by the Revenue to show that appellants received any remuneration or appellants received extra amount and retained the same for dis .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... iew of the fad that the Provident Fund (PF) was directly paid by the service receiver to the PF authorities, we consider that appellants have made out a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit. Accordingly, the requirement of pre-deposit is waived and stay against recovery is granted during the pendency of appeals. (Operative portion of the order has been pronounced in open court)
Case law .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X