Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2023 (12) TMI 79

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ng 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 authori .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the nature of Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency s services, as defined under Section 65 (68) of the Finance Act, 1994 (hereafter referred to as the Act , in short) read with Section 65(105) (k) ibid, and demanded service tax. The Respondents submits that as per the relevant work orders such services were not Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency s service and hence they are not liable to pay service tax. 3. The three Respondent societies were issued SCNs and all the SCNs were adjudicated by the Additional Commissioner confirming the demand of service tax under Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency service along with interest and penalties. On appeal, the Ld Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned Orderin- Appeal No. 103-105/Ran/2012 dated 13-12-2012 allowed the appeals by holding, inter alia, that the contracts were not person based, but job based. Accordingly, the Ld Commissioner (Appeals) held that the demand of service tax under the category of Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency service is not sustainable. Aggrieved against the impugned orders, the department has filed these appeals. 4. In their grounds of appeal, the Appellant department made the following .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... loying their own manpower. The number of workers to be deployed by them to complete the execution of the works within the specified period was as per the discretion and convenience of the contractors societies. In this context reliance is placed on the following precedent decisions, where it has been held that execution of works by deploying manpower does not fall within the ambit of Manpower Recruitment Supply Agency as defied under Section 65(68) of the Act read with Section 65(105) (k). In support of this contention the Respondents relied on the following decisions:- (i) 2016 (41) S.T.R. 806 (Bom.)-CC, CEX ST, Aurangabad vs. Shri Samarth Sevabhavi Trust, (ii) 2023 (73) GSTL 363 (Tri.-Chennai)-S. Selvam vs. CCE ST, Tiruchirapally, (iii) 2014 (36) S.T.R. 1123 (Tri.-Mumbai)- SataraSahkariSetuAudyogik OOS TodaniVahtookSociety vs CCE, Kolkhapur. (iv) 2010 (19) S.T.R. 438 (Tri.-Bang.)-S.S. Associates vs. CCE, Bangalore, (v) 2010 (18) S.T.R. 17 (Tri.-Bang.)-Ritesh Enterprises vs CCE, Bangalore. 8. In view of the above submissions, the Respondents prayed for upholding the impugned Orders-in-Appeal and reject the department's appeals. 9. T .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he 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 Principal Company in discharge of its social commitment and obligation has ensured that the workers, working for them, although were in the roll of the Respondent societies, are not exploited and the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulations and Abolition) Act, 1970 are complied with. 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, we observe that the service rendered by the Respondent wou .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Super Poly Fab-riks Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Punjab reported in 2008 (10) S.T.R. 545 (S.C.). Paragraph No. 8 of the said judgment can be relied upon to drag the point at home, which reads as under :- 8. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that a document has to be read as a whole. The purport and object with which the parties thereto entered into a contract ought to be ascertained only from the terms and conditions thereof. Neither the nomenclature of the document nor any particular activity undertaken by the parties to the contract would be decisive. 9. In view of the above, it is clear that no manpower has been supplied by the respondents to the sugar factory to constitute supply of manpower. This Court had an occasion to deal with the similar issue, as is involved in these appeals, in Central Excise Appeal No. 19 of 2014, and this Court by order dated 27-1-2015 [2015 (38) S.T.R. 468 (Bom.)] has dismissed the said appeal. 15. By following the decisions cited above, we hold that the impugned order has rightly dropped the demands under Manpower Recruitment Supply Agency service and hence we hold that the department's appeals are not sustaina .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates