A. Bharathi Priyan, A. Sagayaraj, K.P. Venkatesh Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Salem
Service Tax
2018 (12) TMI 1184 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 19-12-2018
Appeal Nos. ST/337 to 339/2012 – Final Order Nos. 43137-43139/2018
Service Tax
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical)
Shri S. Kannappan, Advocate for the Appellant
Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) for the Respondent
ORDER
Per Bench
The appellants were issued show cause notices alleging that they are providing manpower supply to M/s. Narasus Coffee Company for the work of grinding roasted coffee beans, blending coffee powder with chicory and packing of coffee powder. They had n
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
and quantity of activities such as grinding, blending and packing. The charges were based on per kilogram of the goods and the charges were not on the basis of the manpower or on hourly basis. Thus the allegation that appellant supplied manpower to Narasus Coffee Company is factually wrong. It is also submitted by him that the appellants are proprietors and will not fit into the category of manpower recruitment or supply agency service. He relied upon the decision in the case of Rameshchandra C Patel Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Ahmedabad – 2012 (25) STR 471 as well as S.S. Associates Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore – 2010 (19) STR 438 (Tri. Bang.).
3. The ld. AR Shri B. Balamurugan supported the findings in the impugned
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
c. The payment is not in respect of number of persons engaged or work done on daily basis or hourly basis. It can be seen from the invoices that amounts are to be paid on the basis of amount of coffee powder that is subjected to the various process. The Tribunal in the case of Divya Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mangalore – 2010 (19) STR 370 had occasion to analyse a similar issue and held that when lumpsum work is agreed upon to be rendered on rate contract payment, the same would not amount to manpower recruitment or supply agency service. For these reasons, we hold that the demand cannot sustain and requires to be set aside, which we hereby do. The impugned orders are set aside and the appeals are allowed with consequen
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =