TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (10) TMI 1245
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt is that the appellant provided manpower for manufacturing of detergent powder/cake to M/s Nirma in its factory at Bhavnagar. Accordingly, the consideration received against the supply of manpower is leviable to service tax under the head of "Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agency Services". The revenue has issued a show cause notice periodically for payment of service tax. The adjudicating authority holding that the activity of the appellant is providing the services of "Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agency Services" confirmed demand of service tax amounting to Rs. 1,40,22,985 by adjudicating nine show cause notices. The demand of interest under section 75 of the Finance Act 1994, was made and penalty under section 76 and 78 was also imposed. Being aggrieved by the order in original dated 8/3/2011 the appellant filed the present appeal. 2. Shri. P.M. Dave, Ld. Counsel with Shri. Shailesh Trivedi, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the appellant have carried out activity of manufacturing of detergent cake/powder. The consideration towards the manufacturing received on the basis of the quantity i.e. per kg basis. Therefore, the appellant have not provid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f India Infotech P. Ltd. K. Damodarareddy V/s. Commr. Of C.Ex. Tirupathi-2010(19) STR 593 (Tri. - Bang.) Hemant V. Deshmukh V/s. Commr. Of Ex., Goa- 2014(35) STR 602 (Tri. - Mumbai) Ritesh Enterprise V/s. Commr. C.Ex. Bangalore-2010(18) STR 17 (Tri.- Bang.) Divya Enterprises V/s. Commr C.Ex., Mangalore-2010 (19) STR 370 (Tri.- Bang.) 3. He also submits that in the appellant's own case on the same issue, the Additional Commissioner of the Central Excise and Service Tax, Bhavnagar dropped the proceedings vide order in original number BHVEXCUS- 000-ADC-036 to 038-14-15 dated 23/1/2015 the said order of the additional commissioner (AR) accepted by the department. 4. On the other hand Shri. L. Patra, Ld. Assistant Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He also handed over a written submission which was taken on record He submits that though there is an agreement for manufacture of synthetic detergent out of raw-material and packing material but the fact remains that the appellant have supplied only man power/labour to M/s Nirma Ltd and this activity had no co-relation with the activity m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unal time and again held that if contract is for particular job and not for man power supply the demand of service tax under Man Power Recruitment And Supply Service cannot be raised, the relevant judgments are referred below:- Rameshchandra C. Patel-2012 (25) STR 471(Tri.-Ahmd.) "4. From the above it can be seen that there are two requirements for determining whether a service is taxable service under the category of manpower recruitment or supply agency. First of all, it should be provided by a manpower recruitment or supply agency and secondly it should be in relation to manpower supply or recruitment. In this case, whether it is in the agreement entered into between the two parties or in the activity undertaken by the appellant which is contract manufacturing, looked into, it is seen that nowhere the question of supply of manpower or recruitment arises. In fact the agreement is totally silent as regards the manpower. It does not have any provision relating to the number of men or labour to be used or the manner in which they have to be used or the quantum of payment to be made to them etc. The department has totally failed to show in which manner the service provide....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the same goods. In the instant case JLSL claimed to be the manufacturer and the claim was accepted by Central Excise Department and JLSL was paying excise duty. In such circumstances is there any scope for PMSL to claim that their activity should also be considered as manufacturing activity in respect of the same goods? 15. We have perused the contract dated 1-4-2007 between the two parties. It is seen that as per the contract JLSL was supplying all the raw materials required for manufacturing final products. JLSL was also supervising the manufacturing process and was taking steps to ensure the quality of the products. All activities like handling the raw materials, its accounting and processing was done by appellant (earlier known as PMSL). This means that both the parties were involved in the manufacturing activity. It is also to be noted that such manufacturing arrangements are very common in the country. In such situation legal provisions exist in Central Excise laws for considering either of the two parties as manufacturer. In most cases the persons doing the job-work claims to be the manufacturer and pays excise duty as applicable in his hands. There are situations where ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ies for manufacture were done by appellant (earlier known as PMSL). Their plant and machinery was used and their employees were doing the processes. In the matter of deciding who is the manufacturer of excisable products, ownership of raw materials is not a critical criterion. We do not see any merit in the argument of Revenue that the activities of making available the factory and infrastructure and doing activities of raw material handling, accounting etc. are to be considered as activities distinct from manufacturing activity. All the activities done by the appellants have to be seen together and when it is so seen it is clear that they were doing manufacturing activity. For reasons already explained, the fact that PLSL was paying excise duty does not lead to a legal position that the appellant (earlier known as PMSL) was not doing manufacturing activity. The fact that appellant (earlier known as PMSL) was charging two components towards job-charges separated as fixed cost and variable cost cannot alter this situation so long as goods were manufactured. In a situation where goods were not manufactured but charges were collected under the fixed component it could have been consid....