Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + SC Service Tax - 2022 (2) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (2) TMI 858 - SC - Service TaxSupply of manpower services or job work contract - suppression of facts or not - filing of incorrect ST-3 returns - filing of ST-3 returns for the period between April 2013 to September 2013 after the due date - Section 70(1) of the Finance Act 1994 and Rule 7 of the Service Tax Rules 1994 - benefit of N/N. 25/2012-Service Tax dated 20 June 2012. Whether the appellant is a job worker within the meaning of the exemption notification dated 20 June 2012 or is merely a supplier of contract labour for the work of the establishment? - HELD THAT:- The substratum of the agreement between the appellant and Sigma deals with the regulation of the manpower which is supplied by the appellant in his capacity as a contractor. The fact that the appellant is not a job worker is evident from a conspicuous absence in the agreement of crucial contractual terms which would have been found had it been a true contract for the provision of job work in terms of Para 30(c) of the exemption notification. The decisions of CESTAT relied upon by the appellant in OM ENTERPRISES VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE-I [2016 (10) TMI 1234 - CESTAT MUMBAI] and BHAGYASHREE ENTERPRISES, SONAWANE INDUSTRIAL VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE-I [2017 (3) TMI 786 - CESTAT MUMBAI] also do not help their submissions as they are fact-specific and based on a reading of the contracts in those cases. In this case, though ostensibly, the agreement contains a provision for payment on the basis of the rates mentioned in Schedule II, the agreement has to be read as a composite whole. On reading the agreement as a whole, it is apparent that the contract is pure and simple a contract for the provision of contract labour. An attempt has been made to camouflage the contract as a contract for job work to avail of the exemption from the payment of service tax. The judgment of the Tribunal does not, in the circumstances, suffer from any error of reasoning. There is no merit in the appeal - Appeal is dismissed.
|