Jurisdiction and contract classification disputes defeated service tax demand where work was treated as job execution, not manpower supply.

A centrally registered service tax assessee can object to proceedings initiated and adjudicated by other commissionerates where no material shows jurisdiction to proceed, and such demand cannot survive on that ground. A contract for loading, unloading and material-handling work, paid per MT and supervised by the contractor, is characterised as execution of a specific job rather than supply of manpower. On that basis, the reverse charge service tax treatment for manpower supply does not apply, and the demand also fails on merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the show cause notice issued by Vadodara Audit-III Commissionerate and the adjudication by Valsad Commissionerate were without jurisdiction in view of the appellant's centralized registration with Kolkata Service Tax Commissionerate; (ii) whether the contract with Mr. Shyam B. Mandal constituted manpower supply service attracting service tax on reverse charge basis.

Issue (i): whether the show cause notice issued by Vadodara Audit-III Commissionerate and the adjudication by Valsad Commissionerate were without jurisdiction in view of the appellant's centralized registration with Kolkata Service Tax Commissionerate.

Analysis: The appellant's centralized registration with Kolkata Service Tax Commissionerate was not disputed. The Tribunal found no supporting material showing that Vadodara Audit-III Commissionerate or Valsad Commissionerate could validly proceed against a centrally registered assessee in the present facts. The jurisdictional objection was therefore accepted.

Conclusion: The proceedings initiated and confirmed by those authorities were held to be without jurisdiction, and the demand could not survive on that ground.

Issue (ii): whether the contract with Mr. Shyam B. Mandal constituted manpower supply service attracting service tax on reverse charge basis.

Analysis: The work order showed that the engagement was for specific loading, unloading and material-handling work, with payment on a per MT basis and responsibility for supervision and control resting with the contractor. The Tribunal held that the substance of the arrangement was execution of assigned work, not supply of manpower. On that basis, the cited service-tax notification did not apply to treat the arrangement as manpower supply service.

Conclusion: The contract was held not to be manpower supply service, and the service tax demand on reverse charge basis failed on merits as well.

Final Conclusion: The demand was unsustainable both on jurisdiction and on classification of the contract, and the appeal succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a contract is for execution of a specific job with the contractor retaining supervision and control over workers, it is not manpower supply service for service-tax purposes; and proceedings by authorities lacking jurisdiction over a centrally registered assessee cannot sustain the demand.

---