9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 736X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a Singh Pal, Assistant Commissioner for the Respondent ORDER This appeal is filed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 364/2013 (MST) dated 20.12.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Chennai. 2. Brief facts leading to the present dispute are that the appellant is rendering 'manpower recruitment or supply agency' service. It is the case of the Revenue th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner-adjudicating authority vide Order-in-Original No. 88/2010 dated 18.11.2010, rejected the explanation, thereby confirming the demands as proposed in the Show Cause Notice. 5. Aggrieved by the above demand, it appears that the appellant preferred an appeal before the first appellate authority, who vide impugned Order-in-Appeal No. 364/2013 (MST) dated 20.12.2013 having confirmed the demand of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... We have considered the rival contentions and we have gone through the order relied upon by the Ld. Advocate. 11. We find, after hearing both sides, that this Bench in its Final Order dated 04.12.2017 (supra) has, after following the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Service Tax v. Sangamitra Services Agency [2014 (33) S.T.R. 137 (Mad.)], set aside the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gency (supra) and hold that the demand is unsustainable. The impugned order is set aside. The appeal is allowed with consequential relief if any, to the appellants." 12. In view of the above, we find the assertion of the Ld. Advocate to be true and that the issue is no more res integra since the same has been decided in the appellant's own case for a different period by this very Bench. Furth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
