9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1369X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pdt.)(A.R.) for the Revenue Decided on merits for the Revenue ORDER Per Mrs. Archana Wadhwa Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner(Appeals), Revenue has filed the present appeal. 2. We have heard Shri Pawan Kumar Singh for the Revenue. Nobody appeared for the respondents. 3. As per facts on record, the respondents were providing 'manpower recruitment services', for which th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent or supply agency. The notice also proposed imposition of penalty. 5. In the meantime the appellant filed a refund claim of Rs. 25,85,238/- with their Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise Division on the ground that the services provided by them were not manpower services and as per the agreement entered into by the appellant with M/s.Urmi International, they were to undertake fabrication of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lowed their refund claim. Hence the present appeal by the Revenue. 7. On going through the impugned orders we note that the appellate authority has dealt with the issue elaborately and has determined the nature of services provided by the appellant based on the terms of the agreement and the scope of activity under taken by the service provider. He has also relied upon the Tribunal's decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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, we find no justifiable reasons to interfere in the impugned order of Commissioner(Appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
