A. Perumal and Co. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise

A. Perumal and Co. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Service Tax
2019 (2) TMI 1179 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 19-2-2019
Appeal No. ST/40610/2013 – Final Order No. 40340 / 2019
Service Tax
Hon'ble Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Hon'ble Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical)
Shri S. Ramachandran, Consultant for the Appellant
Ms. T. Usha Devi, DC (AR) for the Respondent
ORDER
Per Bench
Brief facts are that the appellants are holders of service tax registration for rendering services under Manpower Recruitment and Supply service. It was noticed by the department that they provided Manpower Recruitment and Supply Service to M/s. Caltex Gas India (P) Ltd., Madurai, M/s.SPIC, Tuticorin, M/s. TAC Ltd., Tuticorin and M/s. Venus Home Appliances Pvt. Ltd. They did not discharge service tax on the supply of labour to M/s. Caltex Gas India (P) Ltd. They have discharged service tax on the supply of labour to SPIC, Tac

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

rvice tax for the activity in regard to M/s. Caltex Gas India (P) Ltd. He referred to the work order dated 23.8.2007 as well as to job details and argued that the work order was for filling of cylinders etc. In fact, the nature of work undertaken by the appellant was to do the work of gas filling, manufacture of cylinders etc. and it is not for supply of labour. The department has wrongly interpreted the agreement to conclude that the appellant has supplied labour.
3. The ld. AR Ms. T. Usha Devi supported the findings in the impugned order. She argued that the appellant along with workers had carried out works within the premises of M/s. Caltex Gas India (P) Ltd. and that would show that the appellant has supplied labourer to M/s. Caltex Gas India (P) Ltd. Hence the demand raised under the category of manpower recruitment and supply service is legal and proper.
4. Heard both sides.
5. The issue is whether the activity undertaken by the appellant would fall under the category of Manp

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

t specified by CALTEX, on supplier's receipt of a clean work order. A work order must be clean before it is finalized into a firm supply schedule. A clean work order is one where the specifications and commercial requirements are fully defined. SUPPLIER shall immediately notify CALTEX upon its receipt of a work order that is not clean and specify the manner in which is defective. An earlier lead time is acceptable unless otherwise specified in a work order.
3.3.1 CALTEX shall normally pay SUPLIER each undisputed invoice as per the terms specific to the work order released by CALTEX from time to time and mutually agreed upon.”
6. From the above, it can be seen that the work is done as per the work orders issued by M/s. Caltex Gas India (P) Ltd. So also the payment is made in respect of each work order realized by M/s. Caltex Gas India (P) Ltd. from time to time. There is no whisper in the agreement that the payment has to be based on the number of persons or the man hours engaged f

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Leave a Reply