9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 837X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ative for the Respondent ORDER Confirmation of the Order-in-Original by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby Service Tax liability of Rs. 2,83,271/- on labour charges along with interest and penalties under various provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 was adjudicated against the assessee is assailed by the assessee-appellant before this forum. 2. Factual backdrop of the case, in brief, is that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner of CGST & Central Excise, Nagpur-I by the appellant has brought the dispute to this forum. 3. None appeared for the appellant but a written note of submission has been placed on record that fail to provide any clarity on the issue raised before this Tribunal except that amount shown in the Trial Balance was shown in the receipt side as works contract and the same has been disclosed in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r produced any document nor appeared before the Superintendent for oral evidence and the fact of non-payment of Service Tax has been addressed in the Order-in-Original that got confirmed in the Order-in- Appeal 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 record. It is observed that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ledger. Hence, I hold that assessee has not paid the Service Tax on Labour charges and Service Tax to be recovered with interest and penalty." 6. On perusal of the appeal memo and written note of argument, it is also apparently clear that appellant's only claim was that the amount in which Service Tax has been demanded for providing manpower supply services was received by the appellant and not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
