https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264552 Where contracts and billing showed lump-sum job work for specific processes such as cutting, drilling, punching, bending and notching, and the recipient supplied the material while the work was performed in its factory, the activity was not treated as supply of manpower for service tax purposes. The tribunal found that the department's attempt to classify the arrangement as manpower recruitment or supply agency service was unsustainable because the substance of the transaction was industrial job work, not labour supply. The prior decision on an identical activity supported the same classification. The service tax demand was therefore not maintainable and the revenue challenge failed. en-us Wed, 13 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 27 Sep 2015 08:39:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264552 Where contracts and billing showed lump-sum job work for specific processes such as cutting, drilling, punching, bending and notching, and the recipient supplied the material while the work was performed in its factory, the activity was not treated as supply of manpower for service tax purposes. The tribunal found that the department's attempt to classify the arrangement as manpower recruitment or supply agency service was unsustainable because the substance of the transaction was industrial job work, not labour supply. The prior decision on an identical activity supported the same classification. The service tax demand was therefore not maintainable and the revenue challenge failed. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 13 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264552