2021 (12) TMI 4 - AT - Service Tax

Manufacturing Plastic Jars /= Manpower Recruitment Service. Tribunal rules in favor of contract manufacturing.

Jayesh C Patel and Jimmy Enterprise Versus C.C.E. & S.T. -Ahmedabad-III

Jayesh C Patel and Jimmy Enterprise Versus C.C.E. & S.T. -Ahmedabad-III - TMI Issues:Determining whether the activity of manufacturing Plastic Jars and Containers in the factory of the service recipient by the appellants falls under supply of Manpower and Recruitment Service or Job work manufacturing.Analysis:The appellant argued that they were engaged in manufacturing excisable goods on a job worker basis and not providing Manpower Recruitment Service. They highlighted that all obligations regarding manpower were on them and the service recipient had no involvement in manpower-related payments. The appellant relied on various judgments to support their position.The Revenue, represented by the Learned Superintendent, reiterated the findings of the impugned order, supporting the classification of the activity as Manpower Recruitment Service.Upon careful consideration of both sides' submissions and the records, the Tribunal observed that the appellants had a contract for manufacturing Plastic Jars and containers in the service recipient's factory on a per container basis without collecting fixed wages or salaries for providing manpower. The Tribunal concluded that the activity was Job Work manufacturing and not Manpower Recruitment Service. Reference was made to a previous judgment involving a similar contractor providing services to the same service recipient, where the Tribunal ruled that the activity did not constitute Manpower Recruitment service.The Tribunal analyzed the definition of manpower recruitment or supply service under the Finance Act, emphasizing the requirements for a service to be classified as such. It was noted that the agreement between the parties and the appellant's activity of contract manufacturing did not involve any aspect of manpower supply or recruitment. The Tribunal found that the department failed to demonstrate how the service provided could be categorized under manpower recruitment or supply.Based on the above analysis and supported by the cited judgments, the Tribunal concluded that the services in question could not be classified under manpower recruitment service. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed.