9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (4) TMI 844 - AT - Service TaxLiability of Service tax - Manpower recruitment or supply agency services - Held that - the appellant was awarded the work of wheel assembly in the factory premises of M/s. Endurance Technologies Pvt. Ltd. The purchase order specifically states that an amount of ₹ 1,700/- per unit of wheel assembly will be paid on specific dimension for which appellant has to engage their own manpower to work in the factory premises of Endurance Technologies Pvt. Ltd.. From the entire agreement, which has been entered, it is found that the appellant is required to pay wages of the employees who were detailed to work in the factory premises and appellant is required to comply with all the statutory laws in respect of employees working for him. According to us, the purchase order placed on the appellant is for giving an output per piece rate basis which is nothing but lump-sum awarded to him and cannot be considered as manpower recruitment agency or supply agency services. Therefore, in view of the decision of this Bench in the case of Manish Enterprises Vs CCE 2016 (1) TMI 620 - CESTAT MUMBAI and in the case of Shivshakti Enterprises Vs CCE 2015 (12) TMI 682 - CESTAT MUMBAI , the impugned order is unsustainable and set aside. - Decided in favour of appellant with consequential relief
Issues: Service tax liability on the appellant under the category of manpower recruitment or supply agency services for the period 16.06.2005 to 31.03.2010.
Analysis: The appeal was against Order-in-Original No. PI/Commr/ST/19/2011 dated 11.08.2011. The issue revolved around the service tax liability on the appellant for manpower recruitment or supply agency services provided to M/s. Endurance Technologies Pvt. Ltd. The Revenue argued that the appellant rendered services of manpower recruitment based on a piece rate payment system. However, upon examining the records and purchase order, it was found that the appellant was engaged in wheel assembly work at the factory premises of M/s. Endurance Technologies Pvt. Ltd. The purchase order specified a fixed amount per unit of wheel assembly to be paid to the appellant, who had to engage their own workforce for the task. The appellant was responsible for paying wages and complying with statutory laws for the workers. The Tribunal determined that the payment was a lump sum for output and not for manpower recruitment services, citing a previous case, Manish Enterprises 2016-TIOL-119-CESTAT-MUM, where a similar view was upheld. In a similar case, Shivshakti Enterprises 2015-TIOL-2589-CESTAT-MUM, the Tribunal had also ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing that the agreement was for lump sum work and not for the supply of manpower. Reference was made to various judgments supporting this interpretation, such as Bavariya Enterprises Ltd. 2010 (19) STR-370 and Shriram Sao TVS Ltd. 2015 (39) STR 75 - 2015-TIOL-577-CESTAT-MUM. The Tribunal concluded that based on the facts and precedents, the impugned order was unsustainable and set it aside, allowing the appeal with any consequential relief. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the appellant's activities did not fall under the category of manpower recruitment or supply agency services, as the payment was for a lump sum output and not for the supply of labor. The judgments in similar cases supported this interpretation, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and allowing the appeal.
|
