Commissioner Of Ce & Customs vs Nasik Sarva Sevabhavi Trust

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI

COURT No. I

Appeal No. ST/264/09 and ST/404/12

(Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 13/ST/2009 dated 19.08.2009 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Nashik & Order-in-Appeal No. AKP/50/NSK/2012 dated 22.03.2012 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise Nashik)

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. P.S. Pruthi, Member (Technical)

================================================

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the : No CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the Order?

4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?

Commissioner of CE & Customs, Nashik (in Appeal No. ST/404/12) Appellant

Vs.

Nasik Sarva Sevabhavi Trust

Respondent .

Nasik Sarva Sevabhavi Trust Appellant (in Appeal No. ST/264/09 Vs. Commissioner of CE & Customs, Respondent Nashik

Appearance: Shri B.S. Meena, Addl. Commr (AR) for Revenue Adjournment Request for assessee

CORAM:

Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. P.S. Pruthi, Member (Technical)

Date of Hearing: 04.06.2015 Date of Decision: 04.06.2015

ORDER NO

Per: M.V. Ravindran

These appeals are directed against Order-in-Original No. 13/ST/2009 dated 19.08.2009 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Nashik and Order-in-Appeal No. AKP/50/NSK/2012 dated 22.03.2012 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise & Customs, Nashik.

2. The issue involved in this case is regarding the service tax liability under the category of Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agency Service. The first appellate authority in the impugned order has set aside the order-in-original which was in appeal before him while the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, as adjudicating authority, confirmed the demands raised on the appellant-assessee on the very same issue. Since the appellant-assessee as well as Revenue are in appeal before us, we disposed of the same by a common order.

3. Heard both sides and perused the records.

4. On perusal of the records, we find that the appellant-assessee in this case has been engaged by sugar factories for harvesting sugarcane, transporting and unloading the same at the sugar factories which according to Revenue authorities would fall under the category of Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Services. We find that the issue is no more res integra as in the case of Bhogavati Janseva Trust vs. CCE  2014 (34) STR 410 (Tri. Mum) this Bench had allowed the appeals filed by various appellants engaging in the very same activity. Since the issue is already decided by this Bench, we find that the appeal filed by Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal is liable to be rejected and the appeal filed by the appellant-assessee against order-in-original needs to be allowed.

5. Appeal filed by the appellant-assessee is allowed and Revenues appeal is rejected. (Dictated in Court)

(P.S. Pruthi) Member (Technical) (M.V. Ravindran) Member (Judicial)

nsk

??

??

??

??

1 3