TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appellate authority rules in favor of taxpayer in service tax classification dispute, rejecting Revenue's appeal</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Noida Versus Perspective Hr Solutions</h3> Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Noida Versus Perspective Hr Solutions - TMI Issues:Interpretation of 'manpower recruitment services' for Service Tax liability.Analysis:The case involved a dispute regarding the classification of services provided by the appellant as 'manpower recruitment services' for Service Tax purposes. The Revenue contended that the appellant supplied manpower to a company for fabrication charges, which should attract Service Tax. The appellant, however, argued that they were engaged in fabrication work on a piece-rate basis, not merely providing manpower. The Revenue initiated proceedings against the appellant, demanding Service Tax and imposing penalties. The appellant, in response, filed a refund claim, which was rejected by the adjudicating authority citing pending proceedings. The Commissioner(Appeals) analyzed the agreement between the parties and previous Tribunal decisions to determine that the appellant's services did not fall under 'manpower supply services.' The Commissioner(Appeals) allowed the refund claim, leading to the Revenue's appeal.The appellate authority extensively reviewed the terms of the agreement and the actual activities undertaken by the service provider to ascertain the nature of services provided. Relying on precedents like Ramesh Chandra C.Patel v. CST-Ahmedabad and Damodara Reddy v. CCE, Tirupathi, the authority concluded that compensation based on work done by laborers does not constitute 'manpower supply service.' Additionally, a clarification from the tax research unit of C.B.E.C. supported the view that payment for job-work done, not the number of employees supplied, does not classify as 'manpower supply service.' The appellate authority found no grounds to interfere with the Commissioner(Appeals)'s decision, as it was based on Tribunal precedents, contract analysis, and official clarifications. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed, upholding the decision in favor of the appellant.
TaxTMI 