Page 152 - GSTL_2nd July 2020 _Vol 38_Part 1

70 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 38
ing the same under the heading Cargo Handling Services. It was argued by
the appellant before the First Appellate Authority that the activities under-
taken by the appellant neither falls under Manpower Recruitment Agency
Services nor in the category of Cargo Handling Services. While passing fi-
nal order dated 29-1-2010 no specific order has been passed by the First
Appellate Authority whether service provided by the appellant is Cargo
Handling Services or Manpower Recruitment Agency Services. After dis-
cussing various case laws, First Appellate Authority has held that the plea
of the appellant is not sustainable and accordingly upheld the OIO passed
by the Adjudicating Authority. It has been specifically held by the Adjudi-
cating Authority that appellant has wrongly paid service tax under Man-
power Recruitment Agency Services. Accordingly, there is strength in the
argument of the appellant that the amount of service tax paid under the
head Manpower Recruitment Agency Services was not correct and the re-
fund of the same should be sanctioned to the appellant. It is also observed
from the case records that nowhere in these proceedings it has been held by
the Adjudicating Authority or the First Appellate Authority that services
provided by the appellant fall under the category of Manpower Recruit-
ment Agency Services. In the absence of any such findings, an amount paid
by the appellant under Manpower Recruitment Agency Services is required
to be refunded because no tax can be collected without the authority of law.
Revenue’s argument, that an amount paid by the appellant can be adjusted
against the duty liability under Cargo Handling Services, cannot be accept-
ed as no demand has been made and confirmed against the appellant under
the head Cargo Handling Services. Appeal filed by the appellant is accord-
ingly allowed.”
14. For all these reasons, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned
order and accordingly, upheld the same.
15. We dismiss the appeal filed by the appellant.
(Operative part pronounced in open Court)

_______

2020 (38) G.S.T.L. 70 (Tri. - Hyd.)
IN THE CESTAT, REGIONAL BENCH, HYDERABAD
[COURT NO. I]
Shri P. Venkata Subba Rao, Member (T)
ULTRA TECH CEMENT LTD.

Versus
COMMISSIONER OF C.T., TIRUPATI
Final Order No. A/30792/2019, dated 19-9-2019 in Appeal No. ST/31314/2018
Cenvat credit - Input Service - Internet services, mobile phone services,
tata sky D2H services, etc., exclusively provided for employees at residential
quarters for consideration - Show cause notice alleging input services meant
for personal use of employees excluded by Clause (C) of Rule 2(l) of Cenvat
GST LAW TIMES  2nd July 2020  152