Tribunal rules activity not recruitment service. Payment for work done, not labor supply. Appellant prevails.

The Tribunal determined that the appellant's activity did not constitute Manpower Recruitment or Supply Service as alleged by the department. The agreement was for executing specific work orders, not for supplying labor, and payment was based on work done, not the number of workers. As the workers were under the appellant's control, the Tribunal set aside the demand for service tax, interest, and penalties. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order related to the specific company's payments was also set aside.

---

---

Issues:
1. Whether the activity undertaken by the appellant falls under the category of Manpower Recruitment or Supply Service.

Analysis:
The case involved the appellants who held service tax registration for providing Manpower Recruitment and Supply Service to various companies. The department noticed that service tax was not paid on the supply of labor to one of the companies, leading to a demand notice. The original authority confirmed the demand, interest, and penalties, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), prompting the appeal.

The appellant argued that there was no requirement in the agreement to supply manpower to the specific company in question. They contended that the agreement was for executing work orders or job works, such as filling cylinders, and not for supplying labor. The appellant highlighted that the payment was based on the work executed, not on the number of workers engaged, and the workers were under their control, not the client's.

On the other hand, the department argued that the appellant had supplied laborers to the company based on the work carried out within the company's premises. The key issue was whether the activity undertaken fell under the category of Manpower Recruitment or Supply Service. Upon reviewing the master agreement, the Tribunal found that the payment was for the work executed, not based on the number of workers engaged, and the workers were under the appellant's control.

The Tribunal concluded that the nature of the activity did not align with the definition of manpower recruitment and supply service. Therefore, the demand of service tax under this category was set aside. The impugned order regarding the demand, interest, and penalty related to the amount received from the specific company was also set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief, if any.

---