<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2022 (2) TMI 858 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=418607</link>
    <description>The job-work exemption under Notification No. 25/2012-Service Tax applies only where the contract, read as a whole, genuinely provides for an intermediate production process in relation to goods on which duty is payable by the principal manufacturer. On a holistic reading, the Court found that the agreements primarily regulated deployment, supervision, wage payment, statutory compliance and indemnity, and did not contain the defining features of job work such as process specifications, quality parameters, delivery schedules or breach consequences. The piece-rate billing did not change the substance of the arrangement. The services were therefore treated as contract labour and manpower supply, so the service tax demand was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 May 2022 10:53:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=670747" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (2) TMI 858 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=418607</link>
      <description>The job-work exemption under Notification No. 25/2012-Service Tax applies only where the contract, read as a whole, genuinely provides for an intermediate production process in relation to goods on which duty is payable by the principal manufacturer. On a holistic reading, the Court found that the agreements primarily regulated deployment, supervision, wage payment, statutory compliance and indemnity, and did not contain the defining features of job work such as process specifications, quality parameters, delivery schedules or breach consequences. The piece-rate billing did not change the substance of the arrangement. The services were therefore treated as contract labour and manpower supply, so the service tax demand was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=418607</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>