2019 (8) TMI 1028

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hem, officers investigated the matter and found that the appellant had provided 'Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service' to M/s. L & T and had not discharged service tax on it. Thus, they contravened Section 68, 69 and 70 of the Finance Act, 1994. Coming to such a conclusion, a show-cause notice dated 11.1.2008 was issued to the appellant calling upon them to explain as to why: (a) The services relating to supply of manpower for packing of goods at M/s. L & T, Mysore should not be treated as taxable service under the category of "Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service‟ under Section 65(68) of the Finance Act, 1994; (b) Why service tax amounting to Rs. 6,42,809/- along with applicable Cess should....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er to meter body. c. Pasting the hologram sticker covering meter body and top cover. d. Fixing the screws of terminal cover to meter body. 3. Ultrasonic welding wherever applicable. 4. Sealing the meter using lead seal or plastic seal. Embossing on the lead seal wherever required. 5. Packing the product: a. Preparing the carton box suitable for packing. b. Putting the accuracy report and display parameters wherever required. c. Seal the polythene cover and shrink wrap the cover. d. Putting the meter in the carton serially. e. Write identity number, code and serial number in the carton as per the packing list. f. Stack the items for dispatching....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he nature of manufacture, it cannot be termed as a service. The demand should fail on this ground also. He would rely upon the following case laws to assert that whether the contract is for work and not for supply of manpower, the demand under 'Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service' does not survive. • K. Damodara Reddy vs. CCE: 2010 (19) STR 593 (Tri.-Bang.) • Malathy vs. CCE: (2018) 92 Taxmann.com 297 (CESTAT-Chennai) • Raj Enterprises vs. CST: 2018-TIOL-3293-CESTAT-AHM. • Bhagyashree Enterprises vs. CCE: 2017 (3) GSTL 515 (Tri.-Mum.) Accordingly, he would urge that their appeal may be allowed and the impugned order may be set aside. 6. The learned Departmental Repr....