Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the respondent's activity of undertaking specific jobs at client premises on purchase orders for piece-rate consideration amounted to manpower supply service liable to service tax.
Analysis: The activity described in the show cause notice was the carrying out of specific jobs such as shifting of material, while the respondent was engaged on job-specific purchase orders and was paid on a per-piece basis rather than on salary basis for supplied labour. The first appellate authority had examined the purchase orders and invoices and treated the arrangement as execution of specific work contracts, not mere supply of manpower. The Tribunal found that the factual matrix supported that conclusion and that the lower appellate finding was consistent with the applicable circular and earlier decisions on similar issues.
Conclusion: The activity was not manpower supply service and no service tax liability survived on that basis; the Revenue's challenge failed.
Final Conclusion: The order dropping the demand was upheld and the Revenue's appeal was rejected.
Ratio Decidendi: Where an assessee undertakes identifiable job-specific work under purchase orders for piece-rate consideration, the arrangement is not to be treated as manpower supply merely because labour is used in performance of the work.