TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1220X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the respondents were supplying labour seems to be incorrect as the first appellate authority scanned the bill raised by respondents which indicates that the charges which are paid to the respondents are in respect of lump sum job and various activities involved depending upon the quantum of material. It is also seen that the first appellate authority has recorded factual finding that M/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant : Shri R K Das, Comm (AR) For the Respondent : Shri P V Sadavarte, Adv. ORDER Per: M V Ravindran: These two appeals are directed against Order-in-Appeals No. SR/306/NGP/2010 dated 23.09.2010 SR/299/NGP/2010 dated 21.09.2010. 2. Both the appeals are disposed of by a common order as the dispute is the same. 3. Both the respondents herein are charged with non-dischar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of the first appellate authority, revenue is in appeal in both these matters. 4. Ld. Departmental Representative would draw our attention to the case records as also the grounds of appeal. It is the submission that both the respondents were registered with Government of Maharashtra under Rule 18 (1) of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 or doing specific work of cutting, dri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2015 was decided by this Tribunal in respect of the very same activity undertaken by M/s. Amitasha Enterprises P. Ltd. 6. On perusal of the records and after considering the submissions made by both sides, we hold that the impugned orders passed by the first appellate authority are correct for more than one reason. Firstly the department's case that the respondents were supplying labour se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
