Back
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
M. Ajit Kumar, Technical Member, Ajayan T.V., Judicial Member
A. Rajkumar – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of GST & Central Excise – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. contractors engaged for fabrication; department alleged manpower supply. (Para 2) |
| 2. issue: job work vs. manpower; contracts show principal-to-principal basis. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. supreme court tests distinguish employer-employee via control and integration. (Para 6) |
| 4. cbic circular and prior orders confirm job work; demands unsustainable. (Para 7) |
| 5. appeals allowed; orders set aside. (Para 8) |
Per M. Ajit Kumar,
As both appeals involve a common issue, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common order. The appeals challenge Orders-in-Appeal Nos. 242 and 243/2016 (CXA-I) both dated 31.10.2016, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-I), Chennai.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants being contractors are engaged by M/s. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. (L&T), During the course of verification of the accounts of L&T, for the period July 2012 to March 2014, by the department, it was noticed that L&T had engaged the services of the appellants for carrying out various operations. As all materials, including power, were allegedly supplied and controlled by L&T, the department was of the view that the consideration paid to the appellants was towards
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
