https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446395 CESTAT Kolkata held that respondent societies' services to HEC did not constitute "Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency service" under Section 65(68) read with Section 65(105)(k). The societies executed work orders on principal-to-principal basis with rates fixed per ton, not based on number of workers supplied. Work orders specified job quantity without requiring specific worker numbers or engagement duration. HEC's interest was solely in job execution within agreed timeframes and rates. The tribunal distinguished this from manpower supply services, following precedent from Bombay HC. Revenue's appeals were dismissed as the original order correctly dropped demands under Manpower Recruitment Supply Agency service classification. en-us Thu, 23 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 04 Dec 2023 08:43:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446395 CESTAT Kolkata held that respondent societies' services to HEC did not constitute "Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency service" under Section 65(68) read with Section 65(105)(k). The societies executed work orders on principal-to-principal basis with rates fixed per ton, not based on number of workers supplied. Work orders specified job quantity without requiring specific worker numbers or engagement duration. HEC's interest was solely in job execution within agreed timeframes and rates. The tribunal distinguished this from manpower supply services, following precedent from Bombay HC. Revenue's appeals were dismissed as the original order correctly dropped demands under Manpower Recruitment Supply Agency service classification. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 23 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446395