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 services not 'Manpower Recruitment,' appellant not liable for Service Tax, penalties</h1> <h3>Abbas Mussa Properitor Versus C.C.E. & S.T. -Rajkot</h3> Abbas Mussa Properitor Versus C.C.E. & S.T. -Rajkot - TMI Issues Involved:1. Classification of services provided by the appellant.2. Applicability of Service Tax registration and payment.3. Validity of the demand for Service Tax, penalties, and interests.Summary:Issue 1: Classification of Services Provided by the AppellantThe primary issue was whether the services provided by the appellant to M/s Senor Metals Pvt. Ltd. should be classified under 'Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Services.' The appellant contended that they undertook the job of unloading scrap and sorting it, charging per kilogram, without supplying manpower to the recipient. The control of manpower was with the appellant, not the service recipient, which disqualifies it from being categorized under 'Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Services.' The Tribunal agreed, noting that the service recipient was not concerned with the number of manpower deputed but only with the job's completion.Issue 2: Applicability of Service Tax Registration and PaymentThe appellant did not obtain Service Tax registration or make periodical payments, as they believed their services did not fall under the taxable category. The Adjudicating Authority initially dropped the proceedings, agreeing with the appellant's classification. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) later allowed the revenue's appeal, except for the penalty under Section 76.Issue 3: Validity of the Demand for Service Tax, Penalties, and InterestsThe Tribunal reviewed the definition of 'manpower recruitment or supply agency' and concluded that the appellant's activities did not meet the criteria since the service recipient did not supervise the manpower. The Tribunal referenced several judgments, including Ritesh Enterprises, Sureel Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., and Nishkarsh Industries Services, which supported the appellant's position that their activities amounted to contract work, not manpower supply. Consequently, the demand for Service Tax under the said category was deemed unsustainable.Conclusion:The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, upheld the Order-in-Original, and allowed the appeal filed by the appellant, concluding that the appellant had not provided 'Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Services' and thus was not liable for the demanded Service Tax.
TaxTMI 