https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784072 The dominant issue was whether activities undertaken under lump-sum textile processing contracts constituted "Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service" or job work. The Tribunal held that where the contractor undertook specified processes (e.g., coning, dyeing, drying, rewinding, texturizing, twisting, weaving, knitting) on agreed job-work rates and scope of work, the arrangement was execution of job work and not supply of manpower, following its earlier binding decision on identical contract terms. Consequently, the impugned service tax demand treating the activity as manpower supply, along with associated consequences, was not sustainable and the appeal was allowed. en-us Wed, 24 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 29 Dec 2025 08:56:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784072 The dominant issue was whether activities undertaken under lump-sum textile processing contracts constituted "Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service" or job work. The Tribunal held that where the contractor undertook specified processes (e.g., coning, dyeing, drying, rewinding, texturizing, twisting, weaving, knitting) on agreed job-work rates and scope of work, the arrangement was execution of job work and not supply of manpower, following its earlier binding decision on identical contract terms. Consequently, the impugned service tax demand treating the activity as manpower supply, along with associated consequences, was not sustainable and the appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 24 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784072