2015 (12) TMI 682 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal overturns service tax liability order, deems job work not manpower supply

Shivshakti Enterprises Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune

The Tribunal set aside the order-in-appeal regarding non-discharge of service tax liability under 'Man Power Recruitment or Supply Services,' finding the ... Demand of service tax - lump sum contract - Man Power Recruitment or Supply Services - Held that:- Tata Motors Ltd. had agreed to pay consideration to the appellant based upon the number of pieces that would be manufactured by appellant in the factory premises of Tata Motors. We find that the issue is no more res Integra in as much, in case of Bavariya Enterprises Ltd. Tribunal based on laser of contract purchase orders indicated execution of lump sum work as understood by appellant and service recipients. The case is in hand, the appellant as well as the service recipients understood the agreement between them as the lump sum agreement and not for supply of manpower. We find that this bench in the case of Shriram Sao TVS Ltd. [2015 (4) TMI 38 - CESTAT MUMBAI], in a similar kind of service of lump sum contract for harvesting, loading and unloading of sugarcane is not manpower supply service - Impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues Involved: Non-discharge of service tax liability under 'Man Power Recruitment or Supply Services.'Analysis:Issue 1: Non-discharge of service tax liability under 'Man Power Recruitment or Supply Services'The appeal was against an order-in-appeal dated 01/05/2013 regarding the non-discharge of service tax liability under the category of 'Man Power Recruitment or Supply Services.' The appellant had deployed employees to Tata Motors' factory premises for specific job work based on purchase orders. The appellant argued that they were engaged in job work of parts required by Tata Motors, not in supplying manpower. The Tribunal found that Tata Motors agreed to pay based on the number of pieces manufactured by the appellant at their premises. Referring to previous cases, the Tribunal noted that the agreement was understood as a lump sum contract, not for the supply of manpower. Citing precedents like Bavariya Enterprises Ltd. and Shriram Sao TVS Ltd., the Tribunal held that the impugned order was to be set aside, allowing the appeal with consequential relief.This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the legal judgment, outlining the facts, arguments, and the Tribunal's decision based on relevant legal precedents and considerations.