9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 1096X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alties on the ground that the appellant provided "Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency" service to M/s. Sriganganagar Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangl Ltd. (SZDUSSL). 2. The appellant contended in its appeal that it was only entitled to 5% service charges on actual payment made to labour by SZDUSSL and on such service charges, the service tax has already been deposited. It stated that there was no suppression or wilful misstatements and it was its bona fide belief that the service tax was being rightly discharging by it. The appellant seemed to be financially unable to engage a counsel and therefore Shri Yogendra Adlak was requested to represent the appellant. Accordingly, Shri Yogendra Adlak, ld. Counsel appeared on behalf of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the labourers and therefore the service tax is leviable on such gross amount and not merely on the amount of commission to which the appellant was entitled. Incidentally, the C.B.E.& C.'s view is also in conformity with this view as is evident from its Circular No. B1/6/2005-TRU, dated 2-7-2005, which in para 22.4 observed as under :- "Service tax is to be charged on the full amount of consideration for the supply of manpower, whether full-time or part-time. The value includes recovery of staff costs from the recipient e.g. salary and other contribution. Even if the arrangement does not involve the recipient paying these staff costs to the supplier (because) the salary is paid directly to the individual or the contributions are paid to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re amount. That it paid the service tax recovered from the service recipient further demonstrates the appellant's bona fides. The evidence of such payment and copies of ST-3 returns were produced by the ld. Advocate during hearing. In the case of Continental Foundation Jt. Venture v. CCE, Chandigarh-I [2007 (216) E.L.T. 177 (S.C.)] the Apex Court held that expression "suppression" used in proviso to Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 has to be construed strictly and mere omission to give correct information is not suppression of facts unless it was deliberate to stop the payment of duty. The court further held that suppression means failure to disclose full information with intent to evade payment of duty. It has been repeatedly held b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
