https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427956 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, determining that the service provided constituted job work related to manufacturing. The appellant had control over the workers, and the service recipient had no obligation regarding the number of workers or man-hours for the assigned job. The Tribunal concluded that the service did not qualify as Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service based on the agreement terms and control over the workers. The judgment emphasized the significance of analyzing specific agreement terms for accurate classification of services, setting aside the impugned orders and allowing the appeals. en-us Mon, 19 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 21 Sep 2022 07:38:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427956 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, determining that the service provided constituted job work related to manufacturing. The appellant had control over the workers, and the service recipient had no obligation regarding the number of workers or man-hours for the assigned job. The Tribunal concluded that the service did not qualify as Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service based on the agreement terms and control over the workers. The judgment emphasized the significance of analyzing specific agreement terms for accurate classification of services, setting aside the impugned orders and allowing the appeals. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 19 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427956