Job-work fabrication is not manpower supply when payment is for output, not labour deployed.

Fabrication work undertaken on job basis with the appellant's own labour was not treated as Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service because the invoices and recipient's letter showed payment was linked to the quantity of work, not to workers or man-hours. The arrangement was for completion of a fabrication assignment under the appellant's responsibility, without supply of manpower under the recipient's control or supervision. The activity was instead more appropriately covered as Business Auxiliary Service in the nature of production or processing on behalf of the client, and the demand failed because it had not been raised under that head.

---

---

Issues: Whether fabrication work undertaken on job basis with the appellant's own labour was classifiable as Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service.

Analysis: The invoices and the recipient's letter showed that the appellant had been assigned fabrication work and was paid on the basis of quantity of work, not on the basis of number of workers or man-hours. Mere use of labour for executing a job does not amount to supply of manpower. The arrangement was for completion of a fabrication assignment under the appellant's obligation, not for providing manpower under the control or supervision of the recipient. On this footing, the activity did not fall within Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service and was more appropriately covered by Business Auxiliary Service under the head of production or processing on behalf of the client. Since the demand was not raised under that head, the levy could not survive.

Conclusion: The classification under Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service was rejected and the demand was held unsustainable, resulting in relief to the appellant.

---