9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 135X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ayable by the person receiving the service. HELD THAT:- The issue is no longer res integra as this Tribunal in a case of SHRI DAYANAND MISHRA VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE ST, RAJKOT [ 2024 (4) TMI 233 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] has already decided matter where it was held that ' the matter is no longer res-integra as this Tribunal in a similar case has held that the agreement is for execution of a particular work and not for providing any manpower. As per work contract the payment is paid for the work performed on the basis of per Kg of goods manufactured and therefore such an activity cannot be classifiable under the service category of Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service. ' Thus, the service provided by the appellants does not fall under the category of Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency service and therefore, the impugned Orders-In-Appeal are legally not sustainable and therefore set aside - appeal allowed. - MR. SOMESH ARORA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. C L MAHAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Amber Kumrawat learned Advocate for the Appellant Shri Anand Kumar, Superintendent (AR), for the Respondent ORDER All the above- mentioned appeals have been taken togethe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... involved in this appeals have already been decided by this Tribunal so far as job workers such as Abbas Musa Hasan (proprietor) and Shri Dayanand Mishra (proprietor) etc are concerned. The show cause notice issued to M/s. Senor Metals Pvt Ltd and M/s. Rajhansh Metals, Pertains to period effective from 01.07.2012 under Serial No. 8 of the Notification No. 13/2012-ST dates 20.06.2012 which provides that in case of supply of the Manpower or supply Agency service, 25% of the Service Tax is payable by the person supplying the service where as 75% of the Service Tax was payable by the person receiving the service. We find that issue is no longer res integra as this Tribunal in a case of M/s. Dayanand Mishra Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Rajkot in Final Order No. 10766/2024 dated 05.04.2024 has already decided matter the relevant extract of same is reproduced here below:- 3 The learned advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant is engaged in providing service of production/ processing of goods for M/s. Senor Metals Pvt. Limited wherein the service recipient was providing semi-finished materials to the appellant and the appellant was undertaking ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e relevant extract of the above mentioned decision of this Tribunal in the case of Roopsinh Jodhsinh Chauhan and Navalsinh Jadeja vs. CCE ST, Rajkot (supra) is reproduced below:- 7. Having heard both the sides and looking at the facts and the contract which has been entered into by the appellants, we find that appellant have not supplied any manpower to the client as per the contract the same are basically for execution of a particular work as per the work contract at a per Kg/ MT rate fixed for the work. We find that the matter under consideration is no more res-integra as it has already been decided by this Tribunal in the case of Abbas Mussa Proprietor vs. CCE ST, Rajkot - 2023 (8) TMI 249 CESTAT AHMEDABAD. The relevant extract of the above order is reproduced herein below:- 4.4 In the similar case of Sureel Enterprises Pvt. Limited (Supra) the Tribunal has passed the following order: 5. We find that very identical issue in the appellant's own case for the previous period i.e. June 2005 to June 2010 was considered by this Tribunal in Service Tax Appeal Nos. 2327 of 2011, 768 of 2011 and 10391 of 2013.In these appeals this Tribunal has passed a Final Order No. A / 11947 - 119 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sions made by both the sides and perused the record. We find that in the present dispute whether the service is of Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service or job work can be decided only on the basis of the agreement entered between service provider and service recipient. As per the agreement in the present case, the service recipient is having their factory and carried out various manufacturing activities. The present appellant was assigned job work related to manufacturing on the basis of charges which is per piece basis and the item being manufactured by the appellant. As per terms and conditions of the agreement, the service recipient will provide all the facilities such as machines, tools, place etc. The appellant has only to undertake work done their skilled, semi- skilled, non-skilled workers as per drawing by appointing workers/contractor. It is also one of the conditions that the appellant is under obligation to pay minimum wages to its workers even though there is no work. However, whenever there is work, the charges will be paid by the service recipient to the appellant as per the rates decided i.e. per piece basis. 5. As regards the responsibility and control, it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt to service of Manpower Recruitment Agency Service. Accordingly, the appeals were allowed. This Tribunal following various judgment namely, Ramesh C. Patel 2012 (25) STR 471 (Tri. Amd.), Jubilant Industries Limited 2013 (31) STR 181 (Tri. Del.) and Shiv Narayan Bansal 2013 (31) STR 747 held that contract between the appellant and M / s Nirma Limited is of contract manufacturing hence demand under manpower supply cannot be made. Concluding and operating portion of the order is reproduced below: From the above judgments the issue in hand is settled that when the contract between the service provider and service recipient is admittedly of contract manufacturing in such case demand under man power supply cannot be made. The appellant have vehemently argued on Revenue neutral situation on the ground that if at all the appellant is liable to pay service tax the same is available as Cenvat credit to the service recipient i.e. M / s Nirma Ltd. In this regard, he also submitted the details of payment of excise duty of M / s Nirma Ltd from PLA/cash. This prima facie show that it is a case of Revenue neutral and by not paying the service tax by the appellant the Government Exchequer is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
