9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 80X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d it further reveals that the job was mentioned in terms of quantity and not based on number of workmen supplied or engaged. The rate was fixed per Ton basis. The agreements as per the Work Orders did not require or specify the number of workers to be employed and the number of days for which the workers would be engaged. It is for the respective appellant societies to execute the jobs, specified in the Work Orders by deploying as many numbers of workers as per its convenience and discretion. The Principal Company HEC was interested only in the execution of the job entrusted to the Appellant societies at the agreed rates and also within the specified time frame - The wage bills of the workers are not only properly prepared as per Minimum Wages Act, but also paid and their CPF, ESI etc. are properly deducted and deposited to the respective authorities. This does not means that the man power supplied were under the rolls of HEC. Thus, it is observed that the service rendered by the Appellant would not fall within the ambit of Manpower Recruitment Supply Agency as defined under Section 65(68) of the Act read with Section 65(105) (k). The impugned order confirming the demands under Man ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0/-u/s 77 2010-11 Rs. 39,76,455/- Total Rs.1,36,68,229/- M/s Jan Jagriti SSS Ltd. Appeal No ST/70534/2013 2005-06 to 2009-10 Rs. 97,24,050/- Rs.1,33,92,912/- u/s 78 Rs.9,000/-u/s 77 2010-11 Rs. 36,68,862/- Total Rs.1,33,92,912/- M/s DhuruaTakniki SSS Ltd. Appeal No ST/70535/2013 2005-06 to 2009- 10 Rs. 53,47,679/- Rs.75,59,823/- u/s 78 Rs.9,000/-u/s 77 2010-11 Rs. 22,12,144/- Total Rs.75,59,823/- Aggrieved against the impugned order, the Appellants have filed these appeals. 5. The Appellant submits that the Ld. Commissioner has referred to the terms and conditions of the Work Order No. 21/2007 as a specimen, which was issued by HEC to M/s. Jan Jagriti SSS Ltd. By referring to the Conditions 3, 11 and 12 of the Work Order, he has concluded that the Appellant societies provided 'Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agencies Service' and they were liable to pay service tax with effect from 16-06-2005. He has held that the Appellant societies deployed required number of contract workers to their client i.e. HEC for performing specific work for specified period and received amount as per contract from HEC for payment of wages to the deployed workmen, which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ued by HEC. The Work Orders clearly specify the description of the intermittent works to be undertaken and executed by the appellant societies. It clearly shows that the unit of work and also payment therefor on tonnage basis. The Work Orders does not specify anywhere the number of workers to be deployed by the appellant societies to execute the work awarded to them. The Work Orders only provide that the appellant societies as per the contract were under obligation to accomplish the work by deploying their own manpower. The number of workers to be deployed by them to complete the execution of the works within the specified period was as per the discretion and convenience of the contractors' societies. In this context reliance is placed on the following precedent decisions, where it has been held that execution of works by deploying manpower does not fall within the ambit of "Manpower Recruitment & Supply Agency" as defied under Section 65(68) of the Act read with Section 65(105) (k) . In view of the above, the appellant society states that the services provided by them do not fall under the definition of 'Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency'. In support of this contention the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y in any manner for recruitment or supply of man-power temporarily or otherwise to a client. A perusal of the Work Orders issued by HEC clearly reveals that the Appellant societies executed the jobs as the contractors by engaging the workers from their roll and it further reveals that the job was mentioned in terms of quantity and not based on number of workmen supplied or engaged. The rate was fixed per Ton basis. The agreements as per the Work Orders did not require or specify the number of workers to be employed and the number of days for which the workers would be engaged. It is for the respective appellant societies to execute the jobs, specified in the Work Orders by deploying as many numbers of workers as per its convenience and discretion. The Principal Company HEC was interested only in the execution of the job entrusted to the Appellant societies at the agreed rates and also within the specified time frame. HEC as a responsible Public Sector Company, apart from making profit has the social obligation to ensure that the workers employed by the contractors in their factory are not subjected to any exploitation and they are paid their legitimate dues which they are entitled ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents 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 Excise, Punjab reported in 2008 (10) S.T.R. 545 (S.C.). Paragraph No. 8 of the said judgment can be relied upon to drag the point at home, which reads as under :- "8. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that a document has to be read as a whole. The purport and object with which the parties thereto entered into a contract ought to be ascertained only from the terms and conditions thereof. Neither the nomenclature of the document nor any particular activity undertaken by the parties to the con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
