9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (5) TMI 135 - AT - Service TaxClassification of services - Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency service or not - executing works assigned as per the works order - appellant are job workers as well as principal manufactures. SCN issued to M/s. Senor Metals Pvt Ltd and M/s. Rajhansh Metals, Pertains to period effective from 01.07.2012 under Serial No. 8 of the Notification No. 13/2012-ST dates 20.06.2012 which provides that in case of supply of the Manpower or supply Agency service, 25% of the Service Tax is payable by the person supplying the service where as 75% of the Service Tax was payable by the person receiving the service. HELD THAT - The issue is no longer res integra as this Tribunal in a case of SHRI DAYANAND MISHRA VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE ST, RAJKOT 2024 (4) TMI 233 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD has already decided matter where it was held that ' the matter is no longer res-integra as this Tribunal in a similar case has held that the agreement is for execution of a particular work and not for providing any manpower. As per work contract the payment is paid for the work performed on the basis of per Kg of goods manufactured and therefore such an activity cannot be classifiable under the service category of Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service. ' Thus, the service provided by the appellants does not fall under the category of Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency service and therefore, the impugned Orders-In-Appeal are legally not sustainable and therefore set aside - appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Classification of services provided by the appellants. 2. Applicability of Service Tax under the category of Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency service. Summary: Issue 1: Classification of Services Provided by the Appellants The appellants, engaged by principal manufacturers M/s. Senor Metals and M/s. Rajhansh Metals, undertook activities such as loading, unloading, breaking, cutting, casting, processing, and packing of brass scrap and rods. The appellants employed their own skilled and unskilled laborers, maintaining records and complying with statutory requirements. The department contended that the appellants provided manpower recruitment or supply services under the guise of executing work orders, thus avoiding Service Tax. The Tribunal found that the issue had already been decided in similar cases, such as M/s. Dayanand Mishra Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Rajkot, where it was held that the agreements were for executing specific work and not for providing manpower. The payment was based on the quantum of work performed, not on manpower supplied. Therefore, the activities were classifiable under Business Auxiliary Service, specifically "production and processing of goods for, or on behalf of the client," which is exempt from Service Tax. Issue 2: Applicability of Service Tax under Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service The Tribunal reiterated that the matter was no longer res integra, citing previous decisions where it was established that the agreements were for job work and not for manpower supply. The appellants' activities did not fall under the service category of Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service. The Tribunal referenced multiple cases, including Roopsinh Jodhsinh Chauhan and Navalsinh Jadeja vs. CCE & ST, Rajkot, and Sureel Enterprises Pvt. Limited vs. CCE & ST, Ahmedabad, where it was consistently held that such job work agreements do not attract Service Tax under the said category. The Tribunal concluded that the impugned orders were not sustainable and set them aside, allowing the appeals with consequential relief as per law. (Order pronounced in the open court on 30.04.2024)
|
