The Tribunal held that since the contract was not for manpower supply but for specific jobs on a...

The Tribunal held that since the contract was not for manpower supply but for specific jobs on a per-piece rate basis, the client was unconcerned about manpower or manhours involved. Hence, the activities cannot be classified as "Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Services." Relying on the CESTAT Bangalore ruling in S.S. Associates case, the Tribunal categorically held that when the job is undertaken by the contractor at rates based on quantum of work and not manpower/manhours, it is not covered under "Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Services" up to 30.06.2012, and thus no service tax is payable. For the period from 01.07.2012 onwards, under the negative list regime, the appellant's activity amounted to manufacture of milk pouches ..... .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X