2015 (9) TMI 1331 - AT - Service Tax

Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agency service - Held that - appellant-assessee in this case has been engaged by sugar factories for harvesting sugarcane, transporting and unloading the same at the sugar factories which according to Revenue authorities would fall under the category of Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Services. We find that the issue is no more res integra as in the case of Bhogavati Janseva Trust vs. CCE - 2014 (9) TMI 482 - CESTAT MUMBAI this Bench had allowed the appeals filed by various appellants and engaged in the very same activity. Since the issue is already decided by this Bench, we find that the appeal filed by Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal is liable to be rejected and the appeal filed by the appellant-assesssee against order-in-original needs to be allowed. - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Service tax liability under "Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agency" service.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to appeals against Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs and Commissioner (Appeals) regarding service tax liability under the category of "Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agency" service. The first appellate authority set aside the original order, whereas the adjudicating authority confirmed the demands raised on the appellant. The main issue revolved around whether the appellant's activities for sugar factories constituted services falling under the said category. The Tribunal noted that a similar issue had been previously decided in the case of Bhogavati Janseva Trust vs. CCE, where the Bench had allowed appeals by appellants engaged in similar activities. Based on this precedent, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant's appeal should be allowed, while rejecting the Revenue's appeal. The decision was made after hearing both parties and examining the records thoroughly.

In the detailed analysis, the Tribunal highlighted that the appellant's engagement by sugar factories for harvesting sugarcane, transporting, and unloading the same did not qualify as "Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Services." The Tribunal relied on the precedent set in a previous case to support its decision. It was noted that the issue had already been settled by the Bench in a similar context, leading to the rejection of the Revenue's appeal and the allowance of the appellant's appeal against the original order. The judgment was delivered by Member (J), M V Ravindran, and Member (T), P S Pruthi. The legal representatives for the parties involved were Shri B S Meena for the Appellant and an adjournment request for the Respondent. The Tribunal disposed of the appeals by issuing a common order, emphasizing the importance of precedent in determining the outcome of the case.