TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1837X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, it becomes evident that these statements given by the concerned farmers have been retracted during the course of cross examination - there are no substantial difference in the practice followed during the impugned period and that followed in the period covered in subsequent order of the Commissioner dated 30.06.2016. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/497/2011 - FINAL ORDER No. 41991/2018 - Dated:- 5-7-2018 - Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) And Shri P. Dinesha, Member (Judicial) For the Appellant : Shri T.R. Ramesh, Advocate For the Respondents : Shri K.Veerabhadra Reddy, JC (AR) ORDER Per Madhu Mohan Damodhar The facts of the case are that based on investigation the departme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red in their favour by the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay in CCE ST, Aurangabad Vs. Shri Samarth Sevabhavi Trust - 2016 (41) STR 806 (Bom.) and in CCE ST Vs. Godavari Khore Cane Transport Co. (P) Ltd. - 2015 (38)STR 468 (Bom.). He submits that the very same issue has also been decided by the Tribunal in their favour in CCE, Kolhapur Vs. Shriram Sao Tvs Ltd. - 2015 (39) STR 75 (Tri.-Mum.). 3.1 On the other hand, Ld. AR supports the impugned order. He further points out that the subsequent adjudication order relied upon by the Ld. Advocate the adjudicating authority has taken note of the practice which was followed for the earlier period covered by the OIO No. 9/2011 dated 30.05.2011 have now been discontinued; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the subsequent order dated 30.06.2016 relied upon by the Ld. Advocate. In the said subsequent order, in the finding portion English translations of samples of agreements between the sugarcane growers and the sugar mills have been reproduced. From these, it can be gleaned that the farmer has negotiating with one harvesting contractor, however has requested the sugar mill to deduct the harvesting charges from the agreed procurement price and pay the same to the harvesting contractor. In the present appeal, in page 104, we find that the English translation of one such agreement entered for the previous period, namely for the years 2008-09. As per this earlier agreement, the sugarcane farmers are accepting the proposal of sugar mill to deduct t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judgment in Shri Samarth Sevabhavi Trust (supra), the issue dealt with was only whether the assessee therein was a commercial concern. However, on a closer reading of the said judgement, we do find from paragraphs 7-9 thereof, that the Hon'ble High Court has also held that no man power was supplied by the respondents to the sugar factory to substitute supply of man power and hence it did not come within the mischief of the term 'Man Power Recruitment or Supply Agency'. We also find that the Tribunal decision in Shriram Sao Tvs Ltd. (supra), also relied upon by the Ld. Advocate is on in all fours to the facts of the appeal at hand. 6. Following the ratio already laid down in the decisions discussed supra, we find that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
