Manpower supply classification depends on contractual substance, sustaining service-tax demand, extended limitation, and penalty despite output-based payment terms.

Labour contracts are characterised by their substantive obligations, not by output-based payment terms. A contract appointing a labour contractor, requiring labour bills and worker PF and ESIC compliance, and lacking output-quality standards or production benchmarks constitutes taxable manpower recruitment or supply service rather than independent job work. The notes state that an unretracted statement supported this characterisation. Non-disclosure and non-payment of tax on known labour-supply activity justified the extended limitation period and penalty. Form 16A receipts could support demand computation where the service provider failed to produce complete records or show that receipts related to non-taxable activity. The service-tax liability, interest and penalty remained enforceable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant's labour contract constituted taxable manpower recruitment or supply service rather than job work or a manufacturing contract; (ii) whether the extended limitation period, demand based on Form 16A receipts, and penalty were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant's labour contract constituted taxable manpower recruitment or supply service rather than job work or a manufacturing contract.

Analysis: The work order, read as a whole, appointed the appellant as a labour contractor, described the activities to be performed by labour, required submission and payment of labour bills, and required compliance documentation concerning the workers' PF and ESIC contributions. Payment calculated per metric tonne did not alter the essential nature of the arrangement as labour supply. The contract contained no output-quality standards, production benchmarks, or consequences for failure to achieve them that would indicate an independent job-work contract. The appellant's unretracted investigation statement also confirmed that it acted as a labour contractor. Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 did not require exclusion of the appellant's own statement in the circumstances, since the appellant had failed to avail repeated hearing opportunities.

Conclusion: The activity was taxable manpower recruitment or supply service, and the service-tax demand was sustainable, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended limitation period, demand based on Form 16A receipts, and penalty were sustainable.

Analysis: The appellant knew that it provided labour-supply service but did not disclose and pay tax on that taxable activity. In the absence of complete records from the appellant, the receipts reflected in Form 16A could be relied upon; the appellant did not establish that those receipts related to any non-taxable activity. These facts justified invocation of the extended period and the penalty for non-payment of service tax.

Conclusion: Invocation of the extended limitation period, computation of demand using Form 16A receipts, and penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 were sustainable, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The confirmed service-tax liability, interest, and Section 78 penalty remained enforceable.

Ratio Decidendi: The true character of a service arrangement is determined from the contract read as a whole; payment measured by output does not displace its character as manpower supply where the contractual obligations and surrounding evidence establish supply of labour.

---