Roopsinh Jodhsinh Chauhan Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & ST (CESTAT Ahmedabad)
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that as the contract is for job-work carried out by the appellant for the service recipient. The same doesn’t fall under the category of Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service and therefore the service tax demand unsustainable.
Facts- The appellants are engaged by M/s. Rajhans Metals Pvt. Limited for undertaking activities of loading and unloading of scrap, sorting, breaking, cutting, and casting of brass scrap into the foundry and processing and packing of brass rods/ section post manufacturing activity.
As per the terms of the contract/ agreement, the appellants were engaged as a job-workers of M/s. Rajhans Metal Pvt. Limited for carrying out the processing of goods on behalf of their principal service recipient for helping in manufacturing of various types of brass articles which were further cleared on payment of Central Excise duty by M/s. Rajhans Metal Pvt. Limited.
The department was of the view that appellants have provided Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency service and therefore they should have discharged service tax liability on the same.
Conclusion- 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.
Held that work undertaken by the appellant do not fall under the service category of Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service and therefore, the impugned orders are without any merit. Accordingly, we set-aside the same.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT AHMEDABAD ORDER
Since both the appeals are having similar facts therefore both the appeals are taken together for decision.
2. The above mentioned appellants are engaged by M/s. Rajhans Metals Pvt. Limited for undertaking activities of loading and unloading of scrap, sorting, breaking, cutting and casting of brass scrap into foundry and processing and packing of brass rods/ section post manufacturing activity.
3. As per the terms of contract/ agreement the appellants were engaged as job-workers of M/s. Rajhans Metal Pvt. Limited for carrying out processing of goods on behalf of their principal service recipient namely M/s. Rajhans Metal Pvt. Limited. The activity undertaken by the appellant was primarily for helping in manufacturing of various types of brass articles which were further cleared on payment of Central Excise duty by M/s. Rajhans Metal Pvt. Limited. The appellants raised periodic invoices to M/s. Rajhans Metal Pvt. Limited for collecting labour charges on the basis of total quantity of work performed by them for M/s. Rajhans Metal Pvt. Limited. For execution of work by appellant, they employed skilled and unskilled labourer and deployed appropriate number of personnel at the factory premises of M/s. Rajhans Metal Pvt. Limited.
4. The department was of the view that appellants have provided Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency service and therefore they should have discharged service tax liability on the same. The show cause notices and impugned orders issued are as follows:-
