Order Date – 19 September 2022

Facts –

• The Appellant, Nishkarsh Industrial Services, has undertaken the job work under an agreement in the factory premises of the service recipient. The appellant was assigned engineering works as per drawings on the machines and tools provided by the contractors.
• The dispute in present case is regarding the service categorized under Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service or job work.
• The appellant contended that as per terms and conditions of the agreement, the service recipient will provide all the facilities such as machines, tools, place etc. The appellant has only to undertake work done their skilled, semi-skilled, non-skilled workers as per drawing by appointing workers/contractor.
• Therefore, the appellant has undertaken only the job work of manufacture and the service recipient has no responsibility of the workers deputed for the work.
• Being aggrieved, the Appellant has filed the present appeal.

Issues –

• Whether the service of the appellant is classifiable as Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service or under job work service?

Order –

• The Tribunal observed that, the service recipient is having their factory and carrying out various manufacturing activities; and according to the labour laws, the appellant has to bear all the responsibility of appointed workers.
• Further, the appellant is carrying out job work relating to the manufacturing as per agreement entered with the facilities provided by the service recipient and the charges is on per piece basis. The entire control of workers deputed by the appellant for the job work is with the appellant only and the service recipient has no obligation as regards the number of workers, man-hour etc. for the job assigned to the appellant.
• The Tribunal relied upon the case of Sureel Enterprise Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE & ST., 2019 CESTAT Ahmedabad, wherein it was held that that such service are not of Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service but it is of job work as the manufacturing activity in the factory of service recipient is provided with the help of his own workers.
• Thus, the Tribunal held that contract is for job work carried out by the appellant for the service recipient and therefore, the appellant has not provided service of Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service, hence the demand does not sustain.
• Hence, the appeals are allowed in the present case.