<?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>2023 (9) TMI 19 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=442397</link>
    <description>Fabrication work executed on a job basis with charges linked to quantity of work, not manpower supplied or man-hours consumed, was not classifiable as Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service. The documents showed no supply of labour under the recipient&#039;s control or supervision, and mere use of labour to perform the job did not convert the contract into manpower supply. The activity was noted as potentially falling within Business Auxiliary Service as production or processing on behalf of a client, but the demand had not been raised under that head. The classification adopted in the demand was therefore unsustainable and the impugned order was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 Aug 2023 11:59:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=724732" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (9) TMI 19 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=442397</link>
      <description>Fabrication work executed on a job basis with charges linked to quantity of work, not manpower supplied or man-hours consumed, was not classifiable as Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service. The documents showed no supply of labour under the recipient&#039;s control or supervision, and mere use of labour to perform the job did not convert the contract into manpower supply. The activity was noted as potentially falling within Business Auxiliary Service as production or processing on behalf of a client, but the demand had not been raised under that head. The classification adopted in the demand was therefore unsustainable and the impugned order was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=442397</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>