That to complete the work, the Contractor can hire the employee persons and the Contractor shall be responsible for the salary and other rights of the said employee hired by them. That Contractor has perform the work at place and time as specified by the Company.ģ. is engaged in manufacturing of forging and for the process of the forging, this contract is entered into between company and contractor.Ģ. The impugned order reproduced the translation of the said agreement as follows: We find that the agreement between the appellant and the service recipient in Gujarati language has been produced by the appellant as Exhibit ‘F’. 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’.Ĥ. He argued that all the jobs undertaken by the appellant are in the nature of manpower supply. Learned Authorized Representative relied on the impugned order. Talala Taluka Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandali Limited Final Order No.CC vs Shri Samarth Sevabhavi Trust 2016 (41) STR 806 (Bom.).Shri Samarth Shetu Audyogik oos Todani Vahtook Society 2014 (36) STR 123 (Tri.
MANPOWER JOB SERIAL
In the labour bills, it is seen that the columns are Serial Number, Particulars, Quantity, Rate and Amount.Ģ.1 The appellant has relied on the following case law: In support of his claim, the appellant produced certain labour bills. 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. 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 appellants had raised the bill towards labour charges for the activity of inspection, loading and dispatch, production, cutting, short blasting, security guards, gardening etc.Ģ. It has been argued that the appellants were providing services to M/s Mars Forge Private Limited. 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. These appeals have been filed by Mahendrapal & Co., Changela Prasud Popatbhai, Gorakh Sukhai Yadav and Omprakash Ramjugan against demand of service tax under the category of ‘Manpower Supply Service’. If the bills have been raised on per piece basis, then following the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Shri Samarth Sevabhavi Trust (supra), the demand will be set aside. The adjudicating authority can examine how the bills have been raised. In this background, we are constrained to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the original adjudicating authority.
The contract does not contain any per piece rate chart. The bills as well as contract are in Gujarati language. A perusal of the bills and the contract submitted by the appellant does not make it clear how the bills have been raised. 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’.ĬESTAT 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.
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.
0 kommentar(er)
