2018 (7) TMI 1382

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the quantum of goods fabricated - In the case of Shivashakti Enterprises [2015 (12) TMI 682 - CESTAT MUMBAI] where this bench in the case of Shriram Sao TVS Ltd. [2015 (4) TMI 38 - CESTAT MUMBAI], in a similar kind of service of lump sum contract for harvesting, loading and unloading of sugarcane is not manpower supply service. Demand cannot sustain - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) And Ms. Rachna Gupta, Member (Judicial) Shri G.R. Singh, DR for the appellant Shri Saurabh Dixit, Advocate for the Respondent ORDER Per: V. Padmanabhan: 1. The appeal is filed by Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal No. 214/2015 dated 13/05/2015. The Department noticed while auditing the records of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ork carried out by the respondent. In this said document, it has been certified that the respondent was engaged for manufacture of their goods i.e. E.O.T. Cranes and their sub-assemblies. He also brought to our notice the CBEC Circular dated 15/12/2015 in which it has been clarified that when the service provider is assigned a job of fabrication etc and the value of service is a function of the quantum of job work undertaken, the same is not to be considered as supply of manpower. In this connection, he also relied on several case laws:- i. Shivshakti Enterprises V/s Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune 2016 (41) STR 648 (Tri.-Mumbai) ii. D.S. Chavan Engineering Works V/s Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Nasik 2015 (40) STR 1150 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ant based upon the number of pieces that would be manufactured by appellant in the factory premises of Tata Motors. We find that the issue is no more res integra inasmuch as, in case of Divya Enterprises Ltd. - 2010 (19) S.T.R. 370. Tribunal based on laser of contract purchase orders indicated execution of lump sum work as understood by appellant and service recipients. The case is in hand, the appellant as well as the service recipients understood the agreement between them as the lump sum agreement and not for supply of manpower. We find that this Bench in the case of Shriram Sao TVS Ltd. - 2015 (39) S.T.R. 75, in a similar kind of service of lump sum contract for harvesting, loading and unloading of sugarcane held as under : "4. We fin .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X