9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 844X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 06.2005 to 31.03.2010. It is the case of the Revenue that the appellant herein had undertaken to render various services in the premises of M/s. Endurance Technologies Pvt. Ltd., in the form of wheel assembly etc. On noticing that the appellant was paid an amount as consideration on piece rate basis and on furnishing the entire functions, it was presumed that the appellant had rendered the services of manpower recruitment or supply agency services. On perusal of the records and the purchase order placed, we find that the appellant was awarded the work of wheel assembly in the factory premises of M/s. Endurance Technologies Pvt. Ltd. The purchase order specifically states that an amount of Rs. 1,700/- per unit of wheel assembly will be paid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... covered under Business Auxiliary Services, as Manufacturing activity stands excluded in the definition to Business Auxiliary Services. We also agree with the ld. Counsel that if it is considered as taxable activity, the same is exempted under Notification No. 8/2005-ST dated 1/3/2005. On going through judgment cited by the Ld. Counsel, we find that the ratio of the judgment squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. In view of the above discussions, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal of the appellant with consequential relief, if any, in accordance with law." 3.1 In similar set of facts, this Bench in the case of Shivshakti Enterprises 2015-TIOL-2589-CESTAT-MUM has taken a same view which is in para No.5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 123 (Tri-Mum). It was brought to our notice that identical view was expressed by the bench in the case of Godavari Khore Cane Transport Company Pvt. Ltd. Central Excise Appeal No. 19 of 2014 - 2013-TIOL-1986-CESTAT-MUM. The judgment of the Godavari khore Cane Transport Company Pvt. Ltd. was taken in appeal by the Revenue before the Hon'ble High Court Of Bombay at Aurangabad. Their Lordships has upheld the order of the Tribunal - 2015-TIOL-253-HC-MUM-ST reported as in Appeal Nos. ST/256/2008, S.T./68, 7/2009-Mum. [2012 (26) STR 310 (Tri-Mum)]. The ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court at Para 6&7; we with utmost respect reproduce the same." 4. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case and judicial pronouncement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
