2013 (3) TMI 625 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Whether the assistance provided by a sugar factory in mobilizing laborers for cutting sugar cane is covered under the definition of "Manpower Supply or Recruitment Agency Service" u/s 65(105)(k) of the Finance Act, 1994.

Summary:

Issue 1: The dispute revolved around whether the assistance provided by the sugar factory in mobilizing laborers for cutting sugar cane falls under the category of "Manpower Supply or Recruitment Agency Service" as per the relevant sections of the Finance Act, 1994.

Details: The applicant, a sugar factory, contended that the laborers were not their employees, and they merely acted as intermediaries for mobilizing a gang of laborers for cane cutting. The charges for cutting were paid by the applicant but recovered from the farmers. The applicant argued that since the laborers were not their employees, they should not be considered as engaged in the business of supplying manpower.

Issue 2: Whether the control exercised by the sugar factory over the laborers and the nature of payments made to them qualify as activities falling under the definition of a "Manpower Supply Agency."

Details: The Revenue argued that the sugar factory maintained a database of laborers, paid their charges, fixed terms of payment, and retained an amount per metric ton from the laborers' payments to ensure their association. The Revenue contended that the control exerted by the factory over the laborers, regardless of an employer-employee relationship, aligned with the definition of a manpower supply agency.

Issue 3: Interpretation of the definition of "Manpower Supply Agency" under section 65(68) of the Finance Act, 1994.

Details: The Tribunal noted that the applicant, being a sugar factory, did not fit the ordinary meaning of a "manpower recruitment or supply agency." It was observed that the responsibilities and contractual obligations regarding the laborers were not clearly outlined in the adjudication order. The Tribunal opined that merely having a database of laborers or routing payments may not be sufficient to classify the applicant as a manpower supply agency.

Conclusion: The Tribunal granted a waiver of pre-deposit and stayed the recovery of the demanded service tax until the appeal's disposal, considering that the activity of the sugar factory did not align with the definition of a manpower supply agency. The appeal was tagged for final hearing with other related cases.