2015 (9) TMI 214 - AT - Service Tax

Services of Supply of Manpower - Job work at the premises of client - fabrication of Iron Steel Products - Respondent assessee had undertaken certain jobs which has been bundled as a contract. Held that - In the entire records or the memo of appeals on the ground, Revenue has not brought any contrary evidence disputing the factual matrix recorded by the first appellate authority. - first appellate authority was correct in coming to a conclusion that the services rendered by the respondent assessee will not fall under the category Manpower Supply and Recruitment Services . We concurred with the views of first appellate authority that the issue is now squarely covered by the various decision of this Bench which relied upon judgment and order of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Ritish Enterprises Vs. CCE, Bangalore 2009 (10) TMI 182 - CESTAT, BANGALORE . - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of 'Manpower Supply and Recruitment Services' for service tax liability.

Analysis:
The appeal was against Order-in-Appeal No. SR/243/NGP/2010 dated 09.08.2010. The respondent received payments for services rendered to a company, alleged to be taxable 'Manpower Supply' services. The first appellate authority found in favor of the respondent, stating the services did not fall under the taxable category. The appellant contended that the services were incidental to fabrication work and not manpower recruitment. The bills raised by the respondent supported this claim, showing charges unrelated to manpower supply but based on the quantity of material. The activities were carried out within the factory premises of the client, involving tasks like shifting, bundling, packaging, and stacking. The first appellate authority's decision was based on factual findings, which the Revenue did not dispute with contrary evidence.

The Tribunal upheld the first appellate authority's decision, agreeing that the services provided did not constitute 'Manpower Supply and Recruitment Services.' They noted that the issue was previously settled in various decisions, citing the case of M/s. Ritish Enterprises Vs. CCE, Bangalore 2010 (18) STR 17 (Tri.-Bang.). The Tribunal found no infirmity in the impugned order and deemed it correct and legal. The judgment emphasized the importance of factual analysis and precedent in determining the tax liability of services rendered, particularly in cases involving the interpretation of specific service categories under tax laws.