2015 (10) TMI 361 - AT - Service Tax

CESTAT Mumbai Upholds Decision on Manpower Supply Services

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI upheld the impugned order, rejecting the revenue's appeal regarding whether services rendered constituted manpower ... Job Work activity - Manpower Supply Recruitment Agency Services - lumpsum contract of carrying out the job in the factory premises - service recipient has deducted TDS - Contract being entered by the respondent for rendering the services - Held that:- Issue in the current case is regarding the services rendered to Amitasha Enterprises, for various lump sum job undertaken at the service recipient's factory, which was the issue in those cases also. The service recipient in the case in hand and in those cases being the same and having held that similar kind of services rendered by various other service providers will not fall under the taxable services, we do not find any reason to deviate from such a view already taken. It is also to be mentioned that in those cases too revenue was in appeal against the first appellate authority's order holding same view on the same findings, as is in this case. - No infirmity in impugned order - Decision in the case of Yogesh fabricators [2015 (8) TMI 1013 - CESTAT MUMBAI] followed - Decided against Revenue. Issues:Appeal against order in appeal number SR/NGP/2010 dated 21st September 2010 - Whether services rendered constitute manpower supply and recruitment services.Analysis:The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI involved a dispute regarding the nature of services rendered by the respondent to the service recipient. The revenue contended that the services provided constituted manpower supply, emphasizing that TDS deductions by the service recipient indicated a contractual relationship for service provision. However, upon review, it was observed that the first appellate authority had considered various factors, including a Tribunal judgment in the case of Yogesh Enterprises, a certificate from a Chartered accountant, and invoices raised by the respondent. The Tribunal noted that a previous decision in the case of Yogesh fabricators had already settled the issue of similar services not falling under taxable services. The Tribunal found that the services provided to Amitasha Enterprises for lump sum jobs at the recipient's factory were akin to those in previous cases. Given the consistency in rulings and the similarity in facts, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, rejecting the revenue's appeal. The Tribunal emphasized that the impugned order was legally sound and free from any defects, concluding the matter affirmatively.