75th Founding Day Lecture Meeting on “India@2030” Know More

January 2016

[2015-TIOL-2691-CESTAT-MUM] D S Chavan Engineering Works vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Nasik

By Puloma Dalal
Jayesh Gogri
Mandar Telang Chartered Accountants
Reading Time 1 mins
fiogf49gjkf0d
The scope of work order indicating a specific job to be undertaken by the Appellant cannot be considered as a supply of manpower.

Facts
The Appellant had contract on a firm rate basis for welding and gas cutting on various locations of NTPC. The department contended that the control is exercised by NTPC and welding machine, electricity and gas required was given by them and the Appellant was required to supply manpower and accordingly liable under “Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agency Service”. Further, a demand was also raised on the cleaning services.

Held
Relying on the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise & Service Tax vs. Godavari Khore Cane Transport Company P. Ltd [2015-TIOL-253-HC-MUM-ST], the Tribunal held that work order does not indicate supply only of the manpower, on the contrary, scope of work indicates a specific job of welding and gas cutting to be done. Accordingly the liability under ‘Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agency” is set aside. As regards cleaning services, without contesting service tax along with interest was discharged. Observing a genuine misunderstanding, the Court dropped the penalty by invoking section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994.

Download PDF

You May Also Like

GST – Subramaniam panel’s Workable Blueprint

Salman Khan’s Acquittal – A Strong Argument Against Being Lawful