2015 (8) TMI 1013 - AT - Service Tax

Job Work activity - Manpower Supply Recruitment Agency Services - lumpsum contract of carrying out the job in the factory premises - Held that - Grounds of appeal basically relies upon the license issued to the respondent-assessee by the office of the Licensing Officer, Government of Maharashtra, holding that Amitasha Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. is a principal employer. In our considered view, this may not change complexion of the services in any way as the entire records clearly indicate that the respondent-assessee was given a lumpsum contract of carrying out the job in the factory premises of Amitasha Enterprises. This activity will not be covered under the category of Manpower Supply Recruitment Services . This view is expressed by the Bench in the case of Seven Hills Construction vs. Commr. Of Service 2013 (12) TMI 961 - CESTAT MUMBAI . - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Order-in-Appeal confirming demand under "Manpower Supply Recruitment Agency Services"; Cross-objection filed by respondent; Interpretation of service tax liability based on activities performed; Legal position on double taxation in relation to Central Excise duty.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal challenged the Order-in-Appeal confirming the demand for service tax under "Manpower Supply Recruitment Agency Services." The Revenue contested the first appellate authority's decision that the services provided did not fall under this category. The respondent filed a Cross-objection against the Revenue's appeal, leading to both being disposed of together.

Upon review, the Tribunal observed that the adjudicating authority had upheld the service tax demand, alleging that the respondent had supplied manpower to a specific company. However, the first appellate authority disagreed, citing a precedent where it was established that the services rendered did not constitute taxable services. The Tribunal concurred with this view, emphasizing that the respondent's activities were part of a lump sum contract for specific tasks within the factory premises of the client company.

The Tribunal referred to legal precedents and the factual circumstances of the case to determine that the services provided did not align with the definition of "Manpower Supply Recruitment Services." The Tribunal highlighted the principle of double taxation, noting that demanding service tax on activities already subject to Central Excise duty would amount to duplication. Citing relevant case law, the Tribunal concluded that the appeal lacked merit and dismissed it accordingly, also addressing and disposing of the Cross-objection filed by the respondent.

In essence, the judgment clarified the scope of taxable services under the category of "Manpower Supply Recruitment Agency Services" and emphasized the importance of considering the specific nature of services provided in determining service tax liability. Additionally, the Tribunal underscored the legal principle of avoiding double taxation, particularly in cases where activities are already subject to other forms of taxation like Central Excise duty.