Case Law Details
Mahendrapal & Co. Vs C.C. E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad)
The appellants have claimed that the services provided by them do not qualify as ‘Manpower Supply Service’ as it was a contract for job work on per piece basis. It has been argued that the appellants were providing services to M/s Mars Forge Private Limited. The appellants had raised the bill towards labour charges for the activity of inspection, loading and dispatch, production, cutting, short blasting, security guards, gardening etc.
It was argued that the manpower hired by the contractor was working under the control of contractor and was not under the control of service recipient. The payment received by the appellant was based on the work performed and was not related to number of people employed for the said work.
Learned Authorized Representative relied on the impugned order. He argued that all the jobs undertaken by the appellant are in the nature of manpower supply. He argued that even if the jobs are done at per piece basis, still the nature of service is ‘Man Power Supply Service’ and therefore, the appellants are liable for service tax under the category of ‘Manpower Recruitment and Supply Service’.
CESTAT held that unless the contract is for supply of manpower, the charge of provision of service under manpower recruitment and supply service cannot be made. A perusal of the bills and the contract submitted by the appellant does not make it clear how the bills have been raised. The bills as well as contract are in Gujarati language. The contract does not contain any per piece rate chart.
Please become a member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.
