https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76252 CESTAT, Bangalore held that the services provided by the appellant were not classifiable as "manpower recruitment or supply agency" under section 65(105). On examining the contracts and invoices, the Tribunal found that the essence of the arrangement was execution of specific jobs for a lump-sum consideration, not the supply of individual manpower to the service recipient. The Board's Master Circular on supply of manpower was held inapplicable because there was no agreement for utilization of individual workers' services by the client. Consequently, the impugned order demanding service tax under manpower recruitment or supply agency services was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief. en-us Thu, 03 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 27 Nov 2025 15:09:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76252 CESTAT, Bangalore held that the services provided by the appellant were not classifiable as "manpower recruitment or supply agency" under section 65(105). On examining the contracts and invoices, the Tribunal found that the essence of the arrangement was execution of specific jobs for a lump-sum consideration, not the supply of individual manpower to the service recipient. The Board's Master Circular on supply of manpower was held inapplicable because there was no agreement for utilization of individual workers' services by the client. Consequently, the impugned order demanding service tax under manpower recruitment or supply agency services was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 03 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76252