Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2023 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (12) TMI 79 - AT - Service TaxClassification of services - Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency’s service or not - executed various jobs entrusted to them in the plants of HEC, as per the Work Orders issued by HEC, on principal to principal basis - HELD THAT:- In order to fall within the definition of the term ‘Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency’ service, the activity should be for providing any service directly or indirectly 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 Respondent 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 Respondent 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 Respondent 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 to appropriately and also in time. 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 Respondent 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). In the case of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX VERSUS M/S. SHRI SAMARTH SEVABHAVI TRUST, M/S. AMRIT SANJIVANI SUGARCANE TRANSPORT CO. PVT. LTD., M/S. GODAVARI KHORE CANE TRANSPORT COMPANY (P) LTD. AND M/S. GANESH ARPIT SUGARCANE TRANSPORT PVT. LTD. [2015 (3) TMI 1170 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], it has been held that 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. By following the decisions cited above, it is held that the impugned order has rightly dropped the demands under Manpower Recruitment & Supply Agency service and hence the department's appeals are not sustainable. Appeal of Revenue dismissed.
|