2015 (7) TMI 140 - AT - Service Tax

Demand of service tax - Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency - Held that - Respondents herein were charged with non-discharge of service tax liability under the category of Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency service for the work undertaken by them for one S.S. Fabricators. It is seen from the records and undisputed that S.S. Fabricators had issued work orders in favour of the respondent for fabrication of boiler column, tower assembly, inlet nozzle, outlet nozzle etc. on job work basis and paid them the amounts on the basis of work completed by them. - The first appellate authority was correct in relying upon the decision of the Tribunal in Ritesh Enterprises 2009 (10) TMI 182 - CESTAT, BANGALORE and reversing the order of the Adjudicating Authority - No reason to interfere in the order passed by the first appellate authority. - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Appeals by Revenue against first appellate authority's orders on service tax liability for Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency service.

Analysis:
The judgment addresses two appeals filed by the Revenue against impugned orders passed by the first appellate authority, which reversed the view taken by the Adjudicating Authority. The appeals raised the issue of non-discharge of service tax liability under the category of 'Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency' service for work undertaken for a specific entity. The records confirmed that the respondent was charged for this service based on work orders issued by the entity for various fabrication tasks. The first appellate authority examined the bills prepared by the respondent, revealing that the work was undertaken on a lump sum basis and not for the supply of manpower. The authority correctly relied on a previous Tribunal decision in Ritesh Enterprises and reversed the Adjudicating Authority's order. This decision was further supported by a bench in the case of M/s. Yogesh Fabricator, as per Order no. A/996-997/15/STB dated 23.04.2015.

The Tribunal, after considering the submissions and records, found no reason to interfere with the first appellate authority's order. Consequently, the appeals were rejected. The judgment emphasized that the work undertaken by the respondent was not in the nature of supplying manpower but rather on a lump sum basis for specific fabrication tasks. The decision was based on a thorough analysis of the bills and relevant legal precedents, ensuring a fair and just outcome in the matter of service tax liability for the Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency service.