TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 815X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt - Further, Commissioner (Appeals) has also been empowered by Section 35(A)(3) to make such further inquiry as may be necessary, before passing the order. The order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) remanding back the matter for fresh adjudication is set aside and the case is remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to exercise the power of adjudicating authority in the matter of assessment of service tax liability of the appellant, who is duty bound to place all relevant documents before him upon notice. Appeal allowed by way of remand. - Appeal No. ST/85989/2018 - Order No. A/87076/2018 - Dated:- 7-8-2018 - Hon ble Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati, Member ( Judicial ) Shri Mahesh Raichandani, Advocate for the appellant Sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant before it that it was labour contract only, which is covered under Business Auxiliary Service and tax liability was on the service provider. Appellant challenged the said order before the Commissioner (Appeals)-I, Central Tax, Pune on the ground that they had not accepted the service as works contract but in his order he pointed out the inconsistency in the grounds raised in the appeal memo under para 7.1 of his order where at one point, the appellant stated that the contract of the appellant and customer qualifies as works contract and narrated under Para C.4 of the appeal memo, it was found that there was no work contract being undertaken by the appellant. He then arrived at the conclusion that in order to determine the natu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r and in the latter decision cited supra, Ahmedabad Tribunal had distinguished the case laws and differentiated the ratio found in the decision of the Supreme Court in MIL India and the Gujarat High Court cited supra, for which he sought no interference by the Tribunal in the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 5. Heard from both sides at length and perused the case records as well as relevant statutory provisions contained in Notification 30/12 dated 20.06.2012. In the said Notification, w.e.f. 01.07.2012 in case of supply of manpower for any purpose or service in execution of work contract by an individual, HUF or partnership firm whether registered or not including association of persons are required to pay 25% of service tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... though they are not aware about the various statutory liability cast on them and the same will remove the difficulty of the government in tracing out the service provider who are liable to pay service tax. But as commented by Ms. S. Sharma in her article on Reverse Charge Mechanism published in the Chamber Journal of December 2012 at page 95, this system would bring lot of confusion and uncertainty and among them the first would relate to identification of such vendors. In other words, whether the service provider is from an organised sector or unorganised sector, it would be difficult for the service recipient to trace out the same. Circular no. 30/12 is applicable to individual i.e. proprietorship firm, HUF, partnership firm and associat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
