9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 90X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he labour employed. There is no whisper in the contracts for supply of manpower to Hindustan Zinc Ltd. The entire essence of contract is the execution of work detailed in the work schedules. Therefore, the view of the Commissioner (Appeals) that it is lumpsum work, which would not fall under the category of providing of manpower supply service does not call for any interference. - No demand - decided against the revenue. - Appeal No. ST/3126/2011 - - - Dated:- 7-3-2016 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S. Member(Judicial) Shri M.K.Mall, AR for the Appellant Ms. A.S.K.Swetha, Advocate for the Respondent ORDER [ Order per Sulekha Beevi, C. S. ] 1. The above appeal is filed by Revenue challenging the order passed by Commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere was engagement of labour by respondents. That Commissioner (Appeals) erred in holding that the contract is for lumpsum work and that it is immaterial whether the payments were made to employees individually or for the lumpsum work. That the original authority has observed that the principal activity of the respondent is to provide labour for completion of the specified work/job. That as per work order the respondent has to abide by the law under Factories Act, Fatal Accident Act etc. That, this would show that the contract was for manpower supply. Further, respondent will be paid by Hindustan Zinc Ltd the amount as contracted, which rate includes the cost of tea/snacks at ₹ 46 per labour per day and lunch in the range of ₹ 6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rk. But the labour involved in the contract does not have employee-employer relationship with Hindustan Zinc Ltd. As per the work order, it is the respondent who has the responsibility to complete the job as scheduled in the agreement. The payment is received for the work executed and not for the employees. She contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly placed reliance on the judgments laid in M/s Ritesh enterprises case 2010(18) STR 17(Tri-Bang) and M/s Divya Enterprises 2010(19) STR 370(Tri-Bang). In addition, she drew support from the following judgments. 1) Shivshakti Enterprises Vs CCE, Pune, 2016(41) STR 648(Tri-Mumbai) 2) CCE, Kolkapur Vs Shriram Sao TVS Ltd 2015(39) STR 75(Tri-Mum) 3) Hemant V.Deshmukh Vs CC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
