AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 1745
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the demand of Rs. 1,08,75,965/- (for period October 2006 to June 2011) and Rs. 3,71,101/- (for period July 2011 to December 2011) along with interest and penalties under Section 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. The fact, in brief is, that the appellant is engaged in execution of various works contracts for entities such as Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., (BHEL) under different agreements. 3. The Department classified the activities under taken by the appellant under "Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Services" (MRAS). The case of the Department is that the appellant was supplying manpower, whereas, the appellant contends that the contracts were lump sum / job work contracts and not manpower supply. 4. Learned Counsel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ny 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;" 11. Learned Commissioner has summarizes agreements between appellant and BHEL as follows which is relevant for determination of the issue: "18. Sri.R. Ramadass has not disputed the fact that he has received certain amounts from M/s. BHEL during the impugned period for provision of services; that in anticipation of orders from M/s BHEL, he has obtained service tax registration under 'MRAS'; that service tax collected from M/s BHEL during the period from July, 2011 to Dec, 2011 has been credited to the Central Government. But Sri.R. Ramadass has contested that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) Material handling work in HE and fabrication shop." 12. On perusal of the above agreement, it is cleared that the work is awarded on lump sum basis, nowhere any specification of member of manpower, payment linked to output, not labour supply and responsibilities of execution of works lies with appellant. 13. The Tribunal Bangalore in the case of Ritesh Enterprises Vs CCE, Bangalore [2010 (18) STR 17 (Tri. - Bang)], held that lump sum work not covered under Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service. In the case of Divya Enterprises Vs CCE, Mangalore [2010(19) STR 438 (Tri.-Bang)] has held that lump sum work contracts not specifying manpower cannot be classified as manpower service. Tribunal Ahmedabad in the case of Rameshchandra ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... view of the adjudicating authority and went on to say that appellants had wilfully suppressed the fact of service and appellants failed to pay service tax. Both the authorities have not at all discussed how the service provided by the appellant amounts to service of manpower recruitment or supply. After considering the records, submissions and the orders passed by the lower authorities, I am unable to find any ground on which the appellant can be held liable to service tax on the activity undertaken by them. In the result appellant succeeds and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellant." 14. Even at the stage of hearing stay application by this bench already observed that "On going through the agreements, we find ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tters that where the contract is not for manpower supply but for particular job, the service will not fall under 'man power recruitment or supply agency service'. However, since issue involved is mixed of law and facts, in the light of the present fact of the case and the judgments relied upon by the appellant, we are of considered view that the matter needs to be reconsidered by the learned Commissioner (Appeals)." 16. In the present case, agreement clearly demonstrates execution of work and not supply of manpower. The Adjudicating Authority has proceeded merely on the basis that labour was involved, unless, there is specific requirement of labour/ manpower in the agreement, such agreement/ contract may not be classified under "Manpower....