TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (12) TMI 79
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... S. P. Majumdar , Advocate for the Respondent (s) ORDER Per : K. ANPAZHAKAN : The three appeals have been filed by the department against the impugned Orders-in-Appeal No. 103-105/Ran/2012 dated 13-12- 2012, wherein the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) dropped the proceedings. The services provided by all the three Respondent societies are similar and were provided to M/s. Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited, Ranchi ('HEC', in short) and the impugned Orders-in-Appeal have been passed in respect of all the three Respondent societies. Hence, all the three appeals are taken up together for decision by a common order. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that all the three Respondent societies during the material period executed various jo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as the contractors by engaging the workers from their roll and it further reveals that the job was mentioned in terms of quantity and not based on number of workmen supplied or engaged. The rate was fixed per Ton basis. The agreements as per the Work Orders did not require or specify the number of workers to be employed and the number of days for which the workers would be engaged. It is for the respective Respondent societies to execute the jobs, specified in the Work Orders by deploying as many numbers of workers as per its convenience and discretion. As the Principal Company, HEC was interested only in the execution of the job entrusted to the Respondent societies at the agreed rates and also within the specified time frame. HEC as a res....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on to accomplish the work by deploying their own manpower. The number of workers to be deployed by them to complete the execution of the works within the specified period was as per the discretion and convenience of the contractors' societies. In this context reliance is placed on the following precedent decisions, where it has been held that execution of works by deploying manpower does not fall within the ambit of "Manpower Recruitment & Supply Agency" as defied under Section 65(68) of the Act read with Section 65(105) (k). In support of this contention the Respondents relied on the following decisions:- (i) 2016 (41) S.T.R. 806 (Bom.)-CC, CEX & ST, Aurangabad vs. Shri Samarth Sevabhavi Trust, (ii) 2023 (73) GSTL 363 (Tri.-Chennai)-S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ...................................... (k) to any person, by a manpower recruitment or supply agency in relation to the recruitment or supply of manpower, temporarily or otherwise, in any manner; Explanation. - For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that for the purposes of this sub-clause, recruitment or supply of manpower includes services in relation to pre-recruitment screening, verification of the credentials and antecedents of the candidate and authenticity of documents submitted by the candidate;" 13. A plain reading of the definitions mentioned above clearly reveals in order to fall within the above definition, the activity should be for providing any service directly or indirectly in any manner for recruitment o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The wage bills of the workers are not only properly prepared as per Minimum Wages Act, but also paid and their CPF, ESI etc. are properly deducted and deposited to the respective authorities. This does not means that the man power supplied were under the rolls of HEC. Thus, we observe that the service rendered by the Respondent would not fall within the ambit of "Manpower Recruitment & Supply Agency" as defined under Section 65(68) of the Act read with Section 65(105) (k). 14. The Respondent cited various decisions in support of their contention. In the case of CC,CEX & ST, Aurangabad Vs Shri Samarth Sevabhavi Trust, reported in 2016(41) STR 806 (Bom), it has been held that. The relevant portion of the decision is reproduced below : 5. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tract between the respondents and sugar factory and the scope of definitions mentioned above, it appears that the Appellate Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the respondent's work, though provided services to the sugar factory, did not come within the mischief of the term "Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency". 8. This interpretation of agreement between respondents and its principal is in tune with the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Super Poly Fab-riks Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Punjab reported in 2008 (10) S.T.R. 545 (S.C.). Paragraph No. 8 of the said judgment can be relied upon to drag the point at home, which reads as under :- "8. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that a document has to b....