2019 (9) TMI 222

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ddy, Ld. AR, appeared for the Revenue. 3.1 The main contention of the Ld. Advocate for the appellant is that the appellant has never supplied any Manpower whereas by virtue of the respective agreements, they only carried on the assigned work on job work basis for which, the materials were supplied by the appellant. This, according to the appellant, is not amenable to Service Tax. 3.2 He also contended that the appellant had entered into similar agreements with different contractors for the same kind of job, but however, the Ld. First Appellate Authority has sustained the demand in respect of M/s. Sri Kavery Agency alone without any reason whatsoever. 4. On the other hand, Shri. K. Veerabhadra Reddy, Ld. AR, supported the findings of the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....omply with all legal formalities like payment of ESI contribution, Employees Provident Fund contributions relating to their employees. Besides all works assigned have been carried out at the premises of the assessee (service recipient). Thus the role played by all agencies is only to supply adequate manpower to the premises of the assessee to undertake the job assigned to them for execution." (Emphasis by underlining by me) The above finding is given by the Adjudicating Authority after analysing the agreements of respective dates (with M/s. Sri Kavery Agency, M/s. Karthik Enterprises and M/s. Muthuselvi). 7. I also find from perusal of the Show Cause Notice that even while issuing the Show Cause Notice, the aforesaid (respective) agreeme....