Commissioner Of Central Excise, Nagpur vs N.R. Raut

(Arising out Order-in-Appeal No. SR/NGP/2010 dated 21.09.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Nagpur)

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 Yes of the Order?

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

Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur Appellant

Vs.

N.R. Raut Respondent

Appearance:

Shri M.K. Sarangi, AC (AR) for the appellant Shri P.V. Sadavarte, Advocate for the respondent

CORAM:

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

Date of hearing : 26-06-2015 Date of decision : 26-06-2015

O R D E R No:..

Per: M.V. Ravindran:

This appeal is directed against order in appeal number SR/297/NGP/2010 dated 21st September 2010.

2. Heard both sides and perused the records.

3. Revenue has filed this appeal against the impugned order on the ground that the first appellate authority has not considered the factual matrix in its correct perspective, inasmuch that the services rendered by the respondent to the service recipient is in form of manpower supply, that the service recipient has deducted TDS which amounts to the contract being entered by the respondent for rendering the services.

4. On perusal of the records, it is seen that the first appellate authority has relied upon the judgement of the Tribunal in the case of Yogesh Enterprises 2010 (18) STR 17 and also certificate of the Chartered accountant and the invoices raised by the respondent to hold that the services rendered by the appellant may not fall under the category of manpower supply and recruitment services. Learned Counsel was correct to bring to our notice that the issue is now settled by the decision of this bench in respect of Yogesh fabricators 2015-TIOL-1115-CESTAT-MUM which has been followed in subsequent cases. On perusal of the said case laws, we find that the issue in the current case is regarding the services rendered to Amitasha Enterprises, for various lump sum job undertaken at the service recipients factory, which was the issue in those cases also. The service recipient in the case in hand and in those cases being the same and having held that similar kind of services rendered by various other service providers will not fall under the taxable services, we do not find any reason to deviate from such a view already taken. It is also to be mentioned that in those cases too revenue was in appeal against the first appellate authoritys order holding same view on the same findings, as is in this case.

5. Respectfully following the ratio of those judgements and the facts being similar, we uphold the impugned order and reject the revenues appeal.

6. The impugned order is correct, legal and does not suffer from any infirmity.

(Operative part pronounced in Court)

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

//SR

3