TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 233
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of above facts, the department has entertained a view that appellant has provided Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service to M/s. Senor Metals Pvt. Limited and no service tax has been paid on the service charges recovered by them from their service recipient. A show cause notice dated 31.08.2010 came to be issued to the appellant demanding service tax of Rs. 3,04,830/- under Section 73 of Finance Act, 1994. Interest and penal provisions were also invoked by the show cause notice. The original adjudicating authority vide his order dated 01.05.2014 dropped the demand against the appellant by setting aside the show cause notice. The department had gone in appeal against the said order of Deputy Commissioner dated 01.05.2014 before Commissioner (Appeals). The learned Commissioner (Appeals) vide his order dated 06.04.2015 allowed the appeal of the department so far as the demand of service tax under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 is concerned and confirmed the penalty under Section 78 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. Penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 was dropped in the impugned order-in-appeal. The appellant is before us against the above mentioned order-in-ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for execution of a particular work and not for providing any manpower. As per work contract the payment is paid for the work performed on the basis of per Kg of goods manufactured and therefore such an activity cannot be classifiable under the service category of Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service. The relevant extract of the above mentioned decision of this Tribunal in the case of Roopsinh Jodhsinh Chauhan and Navalsinh Jadeja vs. CCE & ST, Rajkot (supra) is reproduced below:- "7. Having heard both the sides and looking at the facts and the contract which has been entered into by the appellants, we find that appellant have not supplied any manpower to the client as per the contract the same are basically for execution of a particular work as per the work contract at a per Kg/ MT rate fixed for the work. We find that the matter under consideration is no more res-integra as it has already been decided by this Tribunal in the case of Abbas Mussa Proprietor vs. CCE & ST, Rajkot - 2023 (8) TMI 249 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD. The relevant extract of the above order is reproduced herein below:- "4.4 In the similar case of Sureel Enterprises Pvt. Limited (Supra) the Tribunal has p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rder dated 18.10.2019 is squarely applicable in the present case. Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside. The appeals are allowed." 4.5 Same view was expressed by this Tribunal in another case of Nishkarsh Industrial Services, wherein this Tribunal has passed the following order: "4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the record. We find that in the present dispute whether the service is of Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service or job work can be decided only on the basis of the agreement entered between service provider and service recipient. As per the agreement in the present case, the service recipient is having their factory and carried out various manufacturing activities. The present appellant was assigned job work related to manufacturing on the basis of charges which is per piece basis and the item being manufactured by the appellant. As per terms and conditions of the agreement, the service recipient will provide all the facilities such as machines, tools, place etc. The appellant has only to undertake work done their skilled, semi- skilled, non-skilled workers as per drawing by appointing workers/contract....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....us period i.e. June 2005 to June 2010 was considered by this Tribunal in Service Tax Appeal Nos. 2327 of 2011, 768 of 2011 and 10391 of 2013.In these appeals this Tribunal has passed a Final Order No. A/11947-11949/2019 dated 18.10.2019 whereby it was held that the appellant's activities amount to manufacture and does not amount to service of Manpower Recruitment Agency Service. Accordingly, the appeals were allowed. This Tribunal following various judgment namely, Ramesh C. Patel 2012 (25) STR 471 (Tri. Amd.), Jubilant Industries Limited 2013 (31) STR 181 (Tri. Del.) and Shiv Narayan Bansal 2013 (31) STR 747 held that contract between the appellant and M/s Nirma Limited is of contract manufacturing hence demand under manpower supply cannot be made. Concluding and operating portion of the order is reproduced below: From the above judgments the issue in hand is settled that when the contract between the service provider and service recipient is admittedly of contract manufacturing in such case demand under man power supply cannot be made. The appellant have vehemently argued on Revenue neutral situation on the ground that if at all the appellant is liable to pay service tax t....