9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 586X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not the case here because in the instant case the manpower remained in control of the respondents and M/s. SCPL has not having any control/ supervision on the said manpower. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... since the respondents act as supply agency, they will fall within the definition of "manpower recruitment of supply agency" under section 65(68) and are liable to Service Tax. He further stated the condition no. 3 of the agreement entered upon between the respondents and SCPL, stipulating the respondents to ensure the persons employed by them should be sufficient, skilled honest and conversant with the work, purported the respondents to engaged the manpower only after pre-recruitment screening, verification of the credentials and antecedents of the candidates. Thus, the respondents work as manpower recruitment or supply agency service. He also stated that it is immaterial as to how payments were charged by the respondents and paid by the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty, therefore no Service Tax liability arises. 5. The definition of taxable Service under Section 65(105)(k) and the definition of "Manpower Recruitment of Supply Agency" under Section 65(68) are extracted as under. Section 65(68) of the Finance Act, 1994 "manpower recruitment or supply agency" means any person engaged in providing any service, directly or indirectly, in any manner for recruitment or supply of manpower, temporarily or otherwise, to any other person; Section 65(105)(k) of the Finance Act, 1994"Taxable Service" means any service provided or to be provided to any person, by a manpower recruitment or supply agency in relation to the recruitment or supply of manpower, temporarily or otherwise, in any manner; Explanation.- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his is not the case here because in the instant case the manpower remained in control of the respondents and M/s. SCPL has not having any control/ supervision on the said manpower. 8. The ld. Advocate for the respondents also drew our attention to the decisions of this Tribunal in the matters of Ritesh Enterprises Vs. C.C.E Bangalore 2010 (18) S.T.R 17 (Tri.- Bangalore) and S.S. Associates Vs. C.C. Bangalore 2010 (19) S.T.R 438 Tribunal Bangalore. In which this Tribunal while following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of state of A.P. Vs. Kone Elevators (India) Ltd. reported in 2005 (181) E.L.T 156 SC and UOI Vs. Mahindra and Mahindra reported in 1995 (76) E.L.T 481 SC, held as under: 9. On a careful consideration o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... flected the role of parties. The said ratio applies to the current cases in hand. We find that the entire tenor of the agreement and the purchase orders issued by the appellants' service recipient clearly indicates the execution of a lump-sum work. In our opinion this lump-sum work would not fall under the category of providing of service of supply of manpower temporarily or otherwise either directly or indirectly. 9. In view of the facts of the matter and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and also the decision of this Tribunal we do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the Department and we are in agreement with the view taken by the ld. Commissioner in the impugned order and therefore this present appeal sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
