Manpower supply service does not cover sugarcane harvesting and transport when payment is quantity-based, not labour-supply based.

Service tax could not be demanded under Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agency service for cutting, harvesting and transporting sugarcane for farmers where payment was fixed by the quantity of sugarcane cut and transported, not by man-hours or supply of labour. The activity was treated as harvesting and transportation work, and the same controversy had already been resolved in the appellant's own and similar cases by holding that such arrangements do not fall within the scope of manpower recruitment and supply agency service. On that basis, the service tax demand was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of Service Tax under Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agency service was sustainable on the activity of cutting, harvesting and transporting sugarcane for farmers.

Analysis: The appellant was paid a fixed amount on the basis of quantity of sugarcane cut and transported, and not on the basis of man-hours. The payment was towards harvesting, cutting and transportation of sugarcane, and the same controversy had already been decided in the appellant's own case and in similar matters, holding that such activity does not fall within the scope of manpower recruitment and supply agency service.

Conclusion: The demand of Service Tax under Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agency service was not sustainable.

---