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>Tribunal rules in favor of manufacturing company, finding no 'Man Power Recruitment & Supply Service' provided.</h1> <h3>M/s. ABI Showatech India Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai</h3> M/s. ABI Showatech India Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai - TMI Issues: Allegation of providing Man Power Recruitment & Supply Service, Res judicata, Interpretation of Manpower Supply Recruitment AgencyIn this case, the appellants, engaged in manufacturing motor vehicle parts, were alleged to have provided 'Man Power Recruitment & Supply Service' by sending/receiving employees on deputation during a specific period. A show cause notice was issued, and penalties were confirmed by the department. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the original order. The appellant contended that the issue was not res judicata as a similar issue was decided in their favor by the Tribunal in another case involving their group company.The Tribunal analyzed the situation and found that the appellants had deputed employees to their group companies for business contingencies, with payments made through debit notes or book adjustments without raising invoices or collecting service tax. The relationship between the appellants and the group companies was not that of an agency and client. Referring to a High Court case, the Tribunal highlighted that the deputation was for the company's interest, with continuous control and supervision remaining with the appellants, not the subsidiary companies. The Tribunal concluded that the appellants did not fall under the definition of a Manpower Supply Recruitment Agency as they were not a commercial concern engaged in providing such services to a client.Moreover, the Tribunal noted that a previous decision by the same Bench favored the appellants in a similar case, citing relevant case law. Therefore, the Tribunal found that the issue was no longer res integra and had been decisively settled in favor of the appellant. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any necessary consequential relief as per the law.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
