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 appellant's services not under 'manpower recruitment'. Appeal allowed for appellant.</h1> <h3>Divya Enterprises Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Mangalore</h3> Divya Enterprises Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Mangalore - [2010] 25 STT 60 (BANG. - CESTAT), 2010 (19) S.T.R. 370 (Tri. - Bang.) Issues Involved:1. Classification of services rendered by the appellant.2. Applicability of service tax under the category of 'manpower recruitment and supply services'.3. Validity of the show-cause notice based on limitation.4. Reliance on Board Circulars and judicial precedents.5. Interpretation of the contract as a works contract versus supply of manpower.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Classification of Services Rendered by the AppellantThe appellant entered into a contract with M/s. Aspin Wall & Co. for services including loading, standardization, unloading, stacking, and weighing. The lower authorities classified these services under 'manpower recruitment and supply agency'. The appellant contended that the contract was for executing specific tasks and not for supplying manpower.Issue 2: Applicability of Service Tax under 'Manpower Recruitment and Supply Services'The lower authorities concluded that the appellant was liable for service tax from June 2005 to September 2006. The appellant argued that the contract was a works contract, not for manpower supply. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the classification under 'manpower recruitment and supply services' and confirmed the demand for service tax, interest, and penalties.Issue 3: Validity of the Show-Cause Notice Based on LimitationThe appellant argued that the show-cause notice was hit by limitation. They had registered under other service categories, and the department was aware of their activities. The tribunal did not specifically address this issue as it disposed of the appeal on merits.Issue 4: Reliance on Board Circulars and Judicial PrecedentsThe Commissioner (Appeals) relied on Circular No. B 1/6/2005-TRU, dated 27-7-2005, which clarified the scope of 'manpower recruitment and supply services'. The appellant argued that this circular was out of context and that the essence of the contract was the execution of work, not manpower supply. They cited various judicial precedents to support their argument.Issue 5: Interpretation of the Contract as a Works Contract versus Supply of ManpowerThe tribunal examined the contract and found that it was for executing specific tasks like loading, unloading, and stacking, and not for supplying manpower. The Supreme Court judgments in Super Poly Fabriks Ltd., Kone Elevators (India) Ltd., and Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. were cited to support the view that the essence of the contract should determine its nature. The tribunal concluded that the contract was for lump sum work and did not fall under 'manpower recruitment and supply services'.Conclusion:The tribunal set aside the impugned order, concluding that the services rendered by the appellant were not classifiable under 'manpower recruitment and supply services'. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief, and no findings were recorded on other submissions.
TaxTMI 