TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1258X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant has supplied labourers but has entered into colourable contracts to avoid the liability of service tax - the show cause notice is not maintainable as the same is based on the presumption, having no sanctity of law. Extended period of Limitation - HELD THAT:- There is no case of any contumacious conduct, suppression or falsification of records on the part of the appellant. Further, whatever service tax the appellant would have paid was available to the principal CPP as the cenvat credit, as they have discharged central excise liability for their manufactured goods paper/paper pulp - extended period is not invokable. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Service Tax Appeal No.51167 of 2014 –CU(DB) - FINAL ORDER N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar Sahani obtained service tax registration number under the new name and style of R.J.S. Enterprises as proprietor. Thereafter, the same business or work was undertaken under the name and style of R.J.S. Enterprises for the principal- CPP, and the appellant started paying service tax w.e.f. 1.4.2010 under the category of Manpower Supply Service . 2. By letter dated 7.9.2010, the Range Superintendent, Haldwani asked for details of turnover and copy of the documents for the period 2005-2006 till 31.03.2010 with intent to examine the service tax liability for the past period. By reply dated 30.09.2010, the appellant submitted the requisite documents. The appellant by letter dated 14.12.2010 requested the Asstt. Commissioner, C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fter, show cause notice dated 5.6.2012 was issued relying on the copy of the agreements entered by the appellant with the CPP during the years 2006-2007 to 2008, and master order dated 14.3.2008 and 7.7.2009. It appeared to Revenue as alleged in the show cause notice, that under the various agreements, for jobs, under which appellant was actually engaged for supply of manpower, and were so worded to avoid the service tax liability. Under the circumstances, the agreements were in fact, for providing manpower. The principal - CPP were supervising the workers supplied by the appellant for the various jobs like pith feeding, wood shifting, cleaning, etc. As per the agreement, the appellant was required to maintain steady supply of workers for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal. 5. Heard the parties and perused the records. 6. The issues in this appeal arising are as follows:- (i) Whether the appellant is liable to pay service tax under the classification supply of manpower for the period prior to 31.03.2010, and (ii) Whether the show cause notice is bad for invocation of extended period of limitation. 7. From the perusal of the copy of the agreement and copy of the bills on record, I find that the appellant has entered into an agreement for execution of various works for the principal CPP. The payment for such work is based on the volume of the work executed and not according to the number of workman deployed by the appellant. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of service tax. Accordingly, I hold that show cause notice is not maintainable as the same is based on the presumption, having no sanctity of law. 9. Further, no liability can be fastened on an assessee for the same work, done in the past only for the reason that in the present or future point of time, the assessee under compulsion by the principal, started paying service tax. Under the facts and circumstances, I find that there is no case of any contumacious conduct, suppression or falsification of records on the part of the appellant. Further, whatever service tax the appellant would have paid was available to the principal CPP as the cenvat credit, as they have discharged central excise liability for their manufactured g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
