Dinesh Kumar and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Dinesh Kumar and Co. vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Oct 31, 2007

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/46370

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/46370
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: R Abichandani, V T M.
Decided On: Oct 31, 2007
Subject: Service Tax

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service Tax

Key legal issue: Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Dinesh Kumar and Co.

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In: (2008)9STR472

Excerpt

1. heard both sides on the stay petitions. a common issue is involved in all these petitions and hence they are disposed of by a common order.2. the appellants were admittedly supplying manpower to various clients and the department sought to levy service tax under heading manpower recruitment agency services - 65(68).3. ld. ca representing the appellants submits that prior to 16-6-2005, the levy was confined to manpower recruitment agencies; they were not recruiting manpower on behalf of other clients; they were only supplying manpower to various clients for specified duration. he also relies on the board's circular no. b1/6/2005-tru dt. 27-7-2005, by which the scope of manpower recruitment service prior to 16-6-2005 was explained and simultaneously explained the expansion of the scope of the service from 16-6-2005. he submits that they are paying a service tax wherever applicable after 16-6-2005.4. after hearing both the sides, we feel that the applicants have made out a strong prima facie case in their favour and accordingly, we grant unconditional stay and waive pre-deposit of the dues as per the orders, till the disposal of the appeals. the appeals are to be listed in their due course.

Full Judgment

1. Heard both sides on the stay petitions. A common issue is involved in all these petitions and hence they are disposed of by a common order.

2. The appellants were admittedly supplying manpower to various clients and the department sought to levy service tax under heading Manpower Recruitment agency services - 65(68).

3. Ld. CA representing the appellants submits that prior to 16-6-2005, the levy was confined to manpower recruitment agencies; they were not recruiting manpower on behalf of other clients; they were only supplying manpower to various clients for specified duration. He also relies on the Board's Circular No. B1/6/2005-TRU dt. 27-7-2005, by which the scope of manpower recruitment service prior to 16-6-2005 was explained and simultaneously explained the expansion of the scope of the service from 16-6-2005. He submits that they are paying a service tax wherever applicable after 16-6-2005.

4. After hearing both the sides, we feel that the applicants have made out a strong prima facie case in their favour and accordingly, we grant unconditional stay and waive pre-deposit of the dues as per the orders, till the disposal of the appeals. The appeals are to be listed in their due course.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Dinesh Kumar and Co. vs Commissioner of Central Excise Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge R Abichandani, V T M.