TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1369X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asmuch as the impugned order of Commissioner(Appeals) is based upon the precedent decisions of the Tribunal as also on the analysis of the contract entered between assessee and the service recipient in terms of which the payments have to be made on the fabrication of per piece and the clarifications issued by the Board, there is no justifiable reasons to interfere in the impugned order of Commissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o June, 2012, it was noticed that the appellant provided manpower to M/s.Urmi International, Noida for which bills were raised by them for fabrication charges in respect of shoe/garments. Revenue entertained a view that the appellant was not having any infrastructure for fabrication, the Bills were essentially for manpower supply, on which the appellant has not paid any Service Tax. 4. In view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... original adjudicating authority on the ground that already proceedings stand initiated against them by way of issuance of a show cause notice dated 17.04.2013 and the refund cannot be sanctioned. 6. On appeal against above, Commissioner(Appeals) took note of the contract as also the precedent decisions of the Tribunal and held that inasmuch as the agreement between the respondents and M/s.Urmi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so the Tribunal's decision in the case of Damodara Reddy v. CCE, Tirupathi [2010 (19) STR 593 (Tri.-Bang.)] laying down that the compensation received from the service recipient based upon the work done by the labourers cannot be held to be a manpower supply service. The appellate authority also referred to the clarification issued by tax research unit of C.B.E.C. from F.No.354/153/2014-TRU da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
