2013 (12) TMI 733

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e objective of the parties was to provide manpower only without carrying out manufacture. Had that been the objective, the appellant would have ceased to operate after supply of manpower. But that was not so. While object is clear from Clause 3 of agreement, that appears to be determining factor to decide incidence of tax under law - appellant had not provided service of manpower but had acted as .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... oned therein and supported by the act carried out. By a proper construction of agreement, one can infer that manufacturing activity carried out by the appellant is beyond the scope of Service Tax law to tax such activity. There was no manpower supply when manufacturing was intended object of the agreement. Discharge of the contractual obligation under clause III of the agreement making manufactu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... wherein the authorities had noted that :- In the instant case all the three persons mentioned in last para of the above letter are not covered under the above referred service as they did the job work themselves. The service receiver has not paid amount individual person who have performed the job work. Moreover, labour employed for the job work remained under the control of job worker and not .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X