9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1171X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Samarth Sevabhavi Trust [2015 (3) TMI 1170 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], where it was held that the respondent's work, though provided services to the sugar factory, did not come within the mischief of the term “Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency” - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - ST/00072/2009 - 42319/2017 - Dated:- 26-9-2017 - Smt. Sulekha Beevi C.S, Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) For the Appellant - Shri A. Cletus, ADC (AR) For the Respondent - Shri S. Muthuvenkataraman, Adv. ORDER Per: Bench M/s. Dharani Sugars Chemicals Ltd., [hereinafter referred to as M/s. DSCL ], respondent/assessee are engaged in manufacture of sugar from sugarcane. The assessee had mo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding services relating to Man-power Recruitment or Supply Agency Services; that only from 16.05.2008 the word commercial concern was replaced by any person ; that prior to 16.05.2008, the services rendered by such agency was taxable only when rendered through the client and the word client was changed to any person only with effect from 16.05.2008. He further submits that the order of the Commissioner is justified and fair. In this regard, he also takes reliance on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Aurangabad Vs Shri Samarth Sevabhavi Trust reported in 2016 (41) S.T.R. 806 (Bom.). 5. Heard both sides and we have gone through the records. 6. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... factory concerned. The respondents have undertaken the activities of harvesting of sugarcane and transporting the same to the sugar factory for which labour is employed. 7. Having regard to the nature of contract between the respondents and sugar factory and the scope of definitions mentioned above, it appears that the Appellate Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the respondent's work, though provided services to the sugar factory, did not come within the mischief of the term Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency . 8. This interpretation of agreement between respondents and its principal is in tune with the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Super Poly Fab-riks Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Exci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
