Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 652 - CESTAT AHMEDABADClassification of services - providing series of services like breaking the upper cover of shell of castings by pneumatic hammer, and also drilling for removal of upper cover and separating each of the pieces in the welding and reduction of size of scrap pieces - to be classified under Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service or not - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute that the appellant have provided particular job of wax repairing and assembly department work for M/s Intricast Private Limited. In view of the invoice raised by appellant and work order it is absolutely clear that the appellant was assigned a particular job of various activities and the consideration for the same was fixed and paid on per KG basis. As per the terms of the contract, the service recipient has not been given the Man Power, the service recipient is concerned only for a particular processing assigned by them to the appellant, irrespective of nature of man power, quantum of man power - the appellant have not provided the ‘Man Power Recruitment or Supply Agency Service’ whereas they have provided the service of ‘Business Auxiliary Service’ i.e. production or processing on behalf of their clients. In view of the various judgments which is on the identical issue and the facts involved in the present case, the Tribunal/ High Court has taken a consistent view that when the agreement between the service provider and recipient is for a particular job and not for supply of man power, the activity cannot be classified under ‘Man Power Recruitment or Supply Agency Service’. In respect of identically placed assessee Shri Rajesh C. Pipadia, the learned Commissioner (appeals) has dropped the demand vide Order No. OIA No. RJT-EXCUS-000-APP-132- 14-15 dated 30.07.2014 and the said order was accepted by the Revenue and no further appeal was filed. This order is also a strong persuasive value in the present case for the reason that in this case also the identical activity was carried out by the assessee for the same service recipient M/s Intricast Private Limited. The demand in the present case is not sustainable. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside - Appeal allowed.
|