2011 (11) TMI 415 - AT - Service Tax

Demand - According to the agreement between NKPL and the agreement, the appellant was to pay specific amounts determined on the basis of number of containers/jars/pet bottles produced by the appellant - learned A.R. submits that the appellant was supplying manpower for conversion of raw materials to finished products and in view of the fact that plant & machinery, space and all other facilities are provided by the principal, the activity undertaken by the appellant is nothing but supply of manpower - it can be seen that there are two requirements for determining whether a service is taxable service under the category of manpower recruitment or supply agency - Held that department has totally failed to show in which manner the service provided by the appellant can be categorized under manpower recruitment or supply - Appeal is allowed

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the activity undertaken by the appellant amounts to providing manpower recruitment or supply agency service?
2. Whether the appellant is liable to pay service tax, interest, and penalties under various sections of the Finance Act, 1994?

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a labor contractor, was involved in converting tin plates to containers or granules to jars/pet bottles in the factory premises of another company. The machinery, space, and facilities were provided by the other company. The dispute arose regarding whether this activity constituted providing manpower recruitment or supply agency service. The department claimed that the appellant was supplying manpower for the conversion process, justifying the demand for service tax, interest, and penalties. The appellant argued that they were engaged in contract manufacturing only, not in supplying labor. The agreement between the parties did not mention manpower supply or recruitment. The appellate tribunal examined the definition of manpower recruitment or supply agency service under the Finance Act, 1994, which requires the service to be provided by a manpower recruitment or supply agency and be related to manpower supply or recruitment. The tribunal found that the agreement and the activity undertaken by the appellant did not involve manpower supply or recruitment. The authorities failed to demonstrate how the service provided could be categorized as manpower recruitment or supply. Consequently, the tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, concluding that they were not liable for service tax on the activity performed.

2. The tribunal observed that the agreement between the parties did not address manpower supply or recruitment, focusing instead on the products to be manufactured and payments to be made. The appellant was registered with the labor department as a contract manufacturer, not a labor supply agency. The department argued that since the principal provided plant, machinery, and facilities, the appellant's activity amounted to supplying manpower. However, the tribunal found no evidence to support this claim. The lower authorities had not adequately explained how the appellant's service fell under the category of manpower recruitment or supply. The tribunal concluded that there was no basis to hold the appellant liable for service tax. As a result, the tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant, providing consequential relief.

In conclusion, the appellate tribunal ruled that the appellant was not providing manpower recruitment or supply agency service and therefore was not liable to pay service tax, interest, and penalties under the Finance Act, 1994. The tribunal found that the agreement and the nature of the activity undertaken did not involve manpower supply or recruitment, leading to the decision in favor of the appellant.