2019 (10) TMI 323

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Shetkari Sahayata Trust. In order-in-original no. 25/ST/2011-12/C dated 26th December 2011, Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Nagpur confirmed tax liability of Rs. 3,76,66,875 under section 73 of Finance Act, 1994, along with interest thereon under section 75 of Finance Act, 1994, besides imposing penalty, under section 76, for the dues arising for rendering of services from 1st April 2005 to 10th May 2008 and of Rs. 3,86,58,142 under section 78 of Finance Act, 1994. 2. The case against the appellant is that this consideration was received from their sister concern for the supply of labour to famers/growers of sugarcane who were required to place their harvest at the disposal of M/s Vasant Sahakari Sakhar Kharkhana Ltd, the sist....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the receiver of the harvested produce, who makes the payment to the appellant. The adjudicating authority also discounted the claim of the existence of agreement between the farmer/grower and M/s Vasant Sahakari Sakhar Kharkhana Ltd for not being evidenced by any agreement. 5. The Tribunal has, in Satara Sahakari Sheth Audyogik Oos Todani Vahtook Society v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolhapur [2014 (36) STR 123 (Tri-Mumbai], held that '5.3 As per Section 65(68) of Finance Act, 1994 ' "manpower recruitment or supply agency" means any person engaged in providing any service, directly or indirectly, in any manner for recruitment or supply of manpower, temporarily or otherwise to any other person' and the taxable service is de....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y or recruitment by the appellants to the sugar factory and therefore, the services rendered by the appellants cannot be classified under manpower recruitment or supply agency services, by any stretch of imagination. It is also worth noting that the appellants do not undertake this work for anybody else except for the sugar factory concerned. In other words, they do not supply manpower to any customer who approaches them. Therefore, the impugned demands by classifying the activity under "manpower supply service" are not sustainable in law. 5.4 It is further seen that the activity undertaken by the appellant merits classification under BAS which is defined under Section 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994, as follows:- "busines....