Job work classification prevails where contractors perform assigned work with their own staff, defeating manpower supply demand.

Contracts under which contractors carried out assigned work at the assessee's premises, including manufacture-related activity, packing, storage, sorting, stacking and cleaning, while deploying their own staff and bearing employment obligations, were treated as job work rather than manpower supply. The same line of agreements had already been accepted as job work for other contractors, and no material distinction was shown to justify a different classification for one contractor alone. The arrangement was also consistent with the cited service tax circular. The service tax demand was therefore set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the agreements with the contractors constituted manpower supply services or job work, and whether the service tax demand based on such classification was sustainable.

Analysis: The agreements and the adjudication findings showed that the contractors were engaged to undertake assigned work at the assessee's premises, including manufacture-related activities up to packing, storage, sorting, stacking and cleaning, with the contractors deploying their own staff and bearing employment-related obligations. The same line of agreements had been treated as job work in respect of other contractors, and no material difference was shown to justify a different classification for one contractor alone. The arrangement was also found consistent with the cited service tax circular.

Conclusion: The contracts were held to be job work arrangements and not manpower supply services, and the service tax demand was set aside.

---