Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2018 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (5) TMI 1230 - AT - Service TaxManpower recruitment agency services - For undertaking the said job work, the appellant had deployed the manpower within the factory premises of M/s. Shivam Structurals - Held that - the appellant s scope of work was confined to the job work activity on behalf of Shivam Structural and the appellant did not deploy the manpower to work under the control and supervision of Shivam Enterprise. Thus, the activities undertaken by the appellant should not fall under the taxable category of manpower recruitment or supply agency service - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
Interpretation of service tax liability for job work activities undertaken by the appellant on behalf of a manufacturer. Analysis: The appeal was directed against an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Raipur, regarding the service tax liability of the appellant for job work activities undertaken for a manufacturer of structural steel items. The Department contended that the appellant should be considered a manpower recruitment agency and be liable to pay service tax under that category. The appellant had deployed manpower within the factory premises of the manufacturer for chattal operations. The work order issued by the manufacturer to the appellant detailed the scope of work, payment terms, and other conditions for the job work. Upon hearing both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal analyzed the work order and the nature of activities performed by the appellant. It was observed that the appellant's scope of work was limited to job work activities on behalf of the manufacturer and did not involve deploying manpower under the control and supervision of the manufacturer. The Tribunal referred to a previous case where a similar work order was analyzed, and it was concluded that such activities should not be classified as taxable under the category of manpower agency service. Therefore, the Tribunal found no merit in the impugned order and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant, setting aside the service tax demand, interest, and penalties imposed on the appellant. In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that the job work activities undertaken did not fall under the taxable category of manpower recruitment or supply agency service. The decision was based on a detailed analysis of the work order, the nature of activities performed, and a previous tribunal ruling on a similar case. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside, relieving the appellant from the service tax liability imposed by the Department.
|