TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1026X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Member (Judicial) and Mr. B.Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Present for the Appellant : None Present for the Respondent: Mr.J.P. Singh, D.R. ORDER PER: B.RAVICHANDRAN The appeal is against order dated 18.10.2011 of Commissioner (Appeals-I), Raipur. When the case is called, none appeared for the appellant. We note that the case was listed on earlier occasions also and on none of those dates the appellant made appearance or sent any written request for adjournment. We note that the case was earlier listed on 09.11.2016, 30.11.2016 and 20.02.2017 and there was no representation of the appellant. We also note that even during the hearing of stay application on 18.06.2012, none appeared on behalf of the appellant. Acco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted that the purpose for which the labourers supplied by the appellant are used by the client is not relevant to consider the tax liability of the appellant. 5. We have heard the ld. A.R. and perused the appeal records. 6. We note that the appellants are basically a labour contractor supplying manpower as per the requirement of their client. The client is using the manpower in the process of manufacture. The same has no consequence to decide the service tax liability of the appellant under the taxable category of Manpower Recruitment Agency in terms of Section 65 (68) of Finance Act, 1994. We note that the said provision defines manpower recruitment and supply service as any person engaged in providing any service directly or indirec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant had engaged labour in connection with production , management and other works with a guarantee of minimum payment of 1000 Ton p.m @ 125/-, Thus, I do not find any dispute regarding classification of service provided by the Appellant and accordingly. reject the Appellant's plea discussed supra. Thus, the Appellant is liable to pay service tax on the amount rcceivcd towards supply of labour to M/s.Rajat Ispat Pvt. Ltd, Accordingly, I don't find any infirmity in the impugned Order demanding Service Tax amounting to ₹ 9,10,213/- to be recovered from the Appellant alongwith interest in terms of Section 73 and Section 75 of the Finance Act,1994, Held accordingly. 5.2 Further I find that, the Appellant during the releva ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nducted by the department which indicates that, the Appellant has knowingly and intentionally did not follow the provisions of Service Tax laws with sole intention to evade payment of Service Tax, Thus, the Appellant is liable for payment of service tux on the value of services provided and in this regard fully agree with the findings of the Adjudicating authority confirming recovery of Service Tax alongwith interest from the Appellant. Held accordingly. 7. On careful perusal of above finding, we note that the grounds of appeal do not contain any submissions, which will persuade as to interfere with the said findings. As already noted the ultimate use of labour by the client is not a criteria to decide the tax liability under service ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
