Judgment:
Ashok Jindal
The appellant is in appeal along with a stay application on the ground that their appeal has been dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) for non-compliance of the provision of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994.
2. The facts of the case are that the demand has been confirmed against the appellant on the ground that the appellant are engaged in the activity of supply of manpower.
3. After hearing both sides, we are of the view that the appeal can be disposed of at this stage itself. Therefore, after granting waiver of the pre-deposit, we take up the appeal for final disposal.
4. Contention of the appellant is that they were not supplying the man power, in fact they are working with their principle manufacturer on contract basis and the remuneration of work executed by them as per the work awarded to them not as per persons supplied.
5. The learned Counsel for the appellant relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Ritesh Enterprises vs. CCE Bangalore - 2010 (18) STR 17 (Tri. Bang) in their support and has also produced a copy of an order passed by the same Commissioner (Appeals) on the identical issue vide Order No. SR/241/NGP/2010 dated 30.07.2010 in case of Shri Sitaram Sharma, in their favour.
6. The learned A.R. relied on the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970.
7. We note that in the impugned order the appeal has been dismissed for non-compliance of the stay order and no merit has been discussed. Therefore, we find that the appeal should be heard on merit by the Commissioner (Appeals).
8. In view of the above, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the matter afresh after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant without insisting any pre-deposit.
9. The stay application as well as the appeal are disposed of in the above terms.