2021 (11) TMI 897 - AT - Service Tax

Classification of services - supply of man power and recruitment services or not - independent contractor carrying out the manufacturing activity in the premises of the service recipient - HELD THAT - The issue has already been decided by this Tribunal in M. ARUL PRAKASAM, S. SUBARAYALU, G. RAMAKRISHNAN, R. ATHINARAYANAN AND P. KANNUSAMY VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF GST CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI 2021 (8) TMI 1063 - CESTAT CHENNAI where it was held that the activity undertaken by the appellants cannot fall under the category of manpower supply service. The issue is no longer res integra. Following the orders of this Tribunal, the impugned order is not sustainable and same is set aside - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues involved:
Whether the independent contractor carrying out manufacturing activity in the service recipient's premises amounts to supply of manpower and recruitment services.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Supply of Manpower and Recruitment Services
The appeal revolved around determining if an independent contractor engaged in manufacturing activity at the service recipient's premises constitutes supply of manpower and recruitment services. The appellant argued that the issue was settled by previous Tribunal judgments in specific cases. The Tribunal, after considering submissions from both sides and reviewing records, found that the matter had already been conclusively decided in the cited orders. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the impugned order was unsustainable and set it aside, allowing the appeal. The decision was based on the precedent set by the Tribunal's previous judgments, making the issue non-res integra. The EH application was also disposed of accordingly.

This judgment emphasizes the importance of precedent in deciding similar cases and highlights the significance of consistency in legal interpretations. It showcases how past decisions by the Tribunal can serve as binding authority in resolving current disputes, providing clarity and predictability in legal outcomes. The ruling underscores the principle of stare decisis, ensuring uniformity and coherence in judicial decisions within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.