SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(CESTAT) 1651

CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
R Ramdadass Contractor – Appellant
Versus
Rangareddy - G S T – Respondent
ST/27101/2013



##PAGE1##

1 Appeal No. ST/27101/2013

CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

HYDERABAD

REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. – I

Service Tax Appeal No. 27101 of 2013

(Arising out of Order-in-Original No.18/2013-Adjn (Commr) S.T. dated 25.03.2013 passed

by Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Hyderabad)

R. Ramadass, Contractor .. APPELLANT

H.No.2-132/4,

Engineer’s Enclave,

Chandanagar,

Hyderabad,

Telangana – 500 050.

VERSUS

Pr. Commissioner of Central Tax .. RESPONDENT

Rangareddy - GST

GST Bhavan,

H.No. 1-98-7-43,

VIP Hills,

Jaihind Enclave,

Madhapur

Hyderabad,

Telangana – 500 081.

APPEARANCE:

Shri S. Nageswara Rao, Consultant for the Appellant.

Shri A. Rangadham, Authorized Representative for the Respondent.

CORAM: HON’BLE Mr. A.K. JYOTISHI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

HON’BLE Mr. ANGAD PRASAD, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

FINAL ORDER No. A/30253/2026

Date of Hearing: 27.01.2026

Date of Decision: 27.04.2026

[ORDER PER: ANGAD PRASAD]

The appellant has filed this appeal against the Order-in-Original No.

18/2013-Adjn (Commr) S.T. dated 25.03.2013 (impugned order), whereby,

Learned Commissioner has confirmed the demand of Rs. 1,08,75,965/- (for

period October 2006 to June 2011) and Rs. 3,71,101/- (for period July 2011

to December 2011) along with interest and penalties under Section 76, 77

and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.

##PAGE2##

2 Appeal No. ST/27101/2013

2. The fact, in brief is, that the appellant is engaged in execution of

various works contracts for entities such as Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd.,

(BHEL) under different agreements.

3. The Department classified the activities under taken by the appellant

under “Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Services” (MRAS). The case

of the Department is that the appellant was supplying manpower, whereas,

the appellant contends that the contracts were lump sum / job work

contracts and not manpower supply.

4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that agreements are work

contract / job contract basis, not manpower supply basis, payment are based

lump sum, linked to work out paid, not depends on number of workers.

5. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that no any obligation

exists to provide manpower to BHEL. It is also submitted that control and

supervision remained with the appellant.

6. It is further submitted that mere deployment of labour does not

convert the activities into “Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency

Services” (MRAS). Learned Counsel for the appellant further, submitted that

there is no suppression of facts or intent to evade Service Tax. The appellant

has acted under bonofide belief. Therefore, invocation of extended period is

not sustainable as per law.

7. Learned Authorized Representative (AR) submitted that reiterates the

findings given by the Learned Commissioner and further submitted that the

nature of activity involves manpower deployment, payments include labour

components, non-registration and non-filing of returns justify invocation of

extended period.

##PAGE3##

3 Appeal No. ST/27101/2013

8. Heard both the sides and perused the records.

9. The issue is, whether the activities under taken by the appellant fall

under “Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Services” (MRAS) or

otherwise.

10. ‘Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Services’ (MRAS) has been

defined under Section 65 (68) of the Finance Act as follows:

“(68) “manpower recruitment or supply agency” means any person engaged

in providing any service, directly or indirectly, in any manner for

recruitment or supply of manpower, temporarily or otherwise, to any other

person;”

11. Learned Commissioner has summarizes agreements between appellant

and BHEL as follows which is relevant for determination of the issue:

“18. Sri.R. Ramadass has not disputed the fact that he has received certain

amounts from M/s. BHEL during the impugned period for provision of

services; that in anticipation of orders from M/s BHEL, he has obtained

service tax registration under ‘MRAS’; that service tax collected from M/s

BHEL during the period from July, 2011 to Dec, 2011 has been credited to

the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top