TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 290X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y concerned with the workmen deployed by the appellant. Since there is no specific mention about deployment of labour/work force, the services provided by the appellant should not fall under the taxable category of manpower recruitment or supply agency service. Further, the rate contract provided in the work order clearly indicates that the amount shall be paid at a fixed basis i.e. on per kgs /per metric ton basis. Since there is no specific mention about payment of reimbursement of wages and salaries to the workman, the services provided shall not fall under such taxable category of service. It cannot be said that the appellant had provided the Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agency Service - the service tax demands confirmed on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng authority after following due process of law, confirmed the service tax demands raised under the manpower recruitment agency service along with interest and also imposed penalties. The appeal preferred against such Order-in-Original dtd. 16.04.2007 was also rejected by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order-in-appeal dtd. 12.10.2007. Being aggrieved, appellant is before this Tribunal. 4. Ms. Pooja Shah, learned Chartered Accountant appeared on behalf of the appellant submits that M/s. Pino has entered into agreement with the appellant for packing and salvaging activities. The appellant was paid for carrying out such activities on per Kgs / Per Metric Ton basis. The workmen deployed by the appellant for carrying out such ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6. We have carefully gone through the relevant contract entered into by Appellant with M/s Pino Bisazza Glass Pvt. Ltd and find that M/s. Pino has entered into agreement with the appellant for packing and salvaging activities. The appellant was paid for carrying out such activities on per Kgs / Per Metric Ton basis. The workmen deployed by the appellant for carrying out such activities were under the supervision and control of the appellant. M/s Pino, who entrusted the job contract to the appellant was no way concerned with the workmen deployed by the appellant. It is also noticed that over and above paying the amount for activities undertaken by the appellant on job contract basis, the said service receiver had not paid any specific pri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
