CHARANJEET SINGH Vs. COMMR. OF C. EX.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD , the learned advocate for the Appellants and DR for the Respondent. This is an application for stay of the order passed by the adjudicating authority and confirmed by the lower appellate authority whereby the demand to the tune of Rs. 3,85,996/ - has been confirmed along with interest besides penalty of equal amount under Section 76, and penalty of Rs. 7,71,992/ - payable under Section 78 besides penalty of Rs. 5000/ - under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 penalty of Rs. 5,000/ - under Rule 7 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 read with Section 70 of the Finance Act, 1994. Placing reliance in the decision of the Tribunal in the case of S.S. Associates v. CCE, Bangalore reported in : 2010 (19) S.T.R. 438 (Tri. - Bang.) learned Advocate for the Appellants submitted that the Appellant is merely engaged to do the work as prescribed under the contract dated 6 -12 -2006 and it does not amount to rendering manpower services and therefore, no service tax was attracted in the matter and besides the turnover of the Appellants had not crossed the limits in terms of notification No. 6/05 -S.T. and the benefit in that regard ought to have been granted to the Appellants which has been ignored by both the authorities. And thirdly, that considering the documentary evidence produced by the Appellants in the form of bank records, total taxable service does not in any case exceed Rs. 24 lakhs and therefore, the authorities erred in quantifying the same as above Rs. 30 lakhs.

(2.) AS regards the contention that the Appellants are not covered by expression manpower recruitment and supply agency for the purpose of levy of tax, the authorities below have analysed the agreement dated 6 -12 -06 and have correctly arrived at the finding that same amount to services within the meaning of said expression, and hence, are covered under the said Act and infact the conditions of the agreement clearly disclose that the Appellants have to ensure due supply of number of workers to insure the production and despatch of the products by M/s. Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. should not suffer which clearly discloses that the Appellant had ensured the manpower supply services for carrying out various services in terms of said agreement. Prima facie, therefore, we do not find any substance in the contention sought to be raised in the matter. As regards the contention of applicability of SSI exemption, the impugned order as well as order passed by the adjudicating authority nowhere disclose any reference to any such ground having been raised before either of the lower authorities. The DR has also drawn our attention to the fact that the Appellants had failed to appear before the adjudicating authority in spite of various notices issued in the matter for hearing. Attention sought to be drawn to the appeal filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) to contend that this ground regarding applicability of SSI exemption was not specifically raised by the Appellants. In that regard, the attention was drawn to ground No. 3 of the appeal memo before the Commissioner (Appeals). The said ground reads thus:

(3.) TAKING into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, however we find that it would be sufficient to direct the Appellants to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/ - (Rupees One lakh eighty thousand only) within a period of 8 weeks while waiving the requirement of pre -deposit of rest of demand under the impugned order including the demand relating to interest and penalty. To come up for reporting compliance on 4 -1 -2011.