As painful as looking for a new job can sometimes be, job seekers often overlook the simplest way to make the search easier: work with a recruiter. A recruiter can ease the pain of the search in several ways: she has contacts you can only dream of, she knows where the jobs are that you probably won’t, and she will help you prepare for interviews with inside knowledge of the company and an objective eye for you. However, sometimes there are misconceptions about recruiters that cause a candidate to question the process. The two main questions candidates have are always the same: “How much does it cost?” and “Why can’t I apply directly to the company?”

All contingency recruiters work in basically the same way: Candidates pay nothing. Clients pay if a match is made.

HOW A RECRUITER WORKS:

1. You submit your resume to the recruiter.

2. The recruiter looks to see if she has a job order that is a fit for you–or if she knows a company that could use your skills and experiences in their organization. Some of the best jobs are created for candidates– more specifically, great candidates.

3. If she sees a good match, she calls you and describe the opportunity. If you agree, she submits your information to the client company.

4. The company puts you through its hiring process.

5. If they hire you, they are billed by the recruiter. If not, you get the news that they are not moving forward. And then the recruiter keeps you in the database in case there’s another appropriate opportunity for you. And since the recruiter has gotten to know you, you will likely be remembered every time she works with a firm that could use your specific talent. Recruiters frequently make introductions between companies and candidates sometimes before they even realize there is a need.

WHY CAN’T YOU GET THE JOB ON YOUR OWN?

So, why shouldn’t you apply directly to the company? Because it’s much riskier for you. When you apply directly, your resume goes into a company black hole. Very few companies mine their database like recruiters do. (If they do, your resume had better be absolutely incredible for you to surface to the top.) You’re stuck waiting for them to call you. If you call them, you’ll likely get less than a direct answer. At best.

WHAT A RECRUITER CAN DO FOR YOU:

On the other hand, a recruiter has the freedom (and the responsibility) to call the company after she submits you, push for a first interview, help you prepare for the interview since we know the company and what they’re looking for, correct some mistakes before you make them, and give you specific feedback after the interview. Even though you’re not “the client,” a recruiter is going to be an advocate for a successful placement. If the recruiter has taken a chance on you, he or she is going to have a vested interest in your success. It becomes an advantage for you.

Having said that, if a recruiter finds out that you’ve already applied directly to the company, he or she won’t deal with you on that. You will have shot yourself in the foot on that one, because you’ve taken away the incentive for the recruiter to work for your chance at that job: if the recruiter doesn’t place you from the beginning, he or she won’t receive a fee. In other words, you can’t apply and then decide you need help. You won’t get it.

It’s almost always going to be to your advantage to use a recruiter from the very beginning of your job search.

Peggy McKee is the owner and chief recruiter at PHC Consulting. PHC Consulting has been providing top sales talent, sales management, marketing and service / support personnel to some of the most prominent high growth companies in the medical and laboratory products industry for over 9 years!

Our client companies provide capital equipment and reagents for the clinical laboratories or research laboratories, equipment and consumables that aid the physician/clinician in diagnostic, therapeutic and prognostic information, software that provides the workflow improvements that have unending positive impact on the patient, physician and the laboratory professional and a number of service offerings in the medical arena (for example: laboratory service, imaging etc).

Our expertise is in providing: Sales, Sales Management, Marketing, Technical Service, & Support Professionals

We provide top talent (usually the top 10% of sales force rankings) and reduce turnover (through exceptional client knowledge and candidate screening) this in combination with our reputation for smoothly facilitating the hiring process makes us the search firm of choice in this arena.

See our website at http://www.phcconsulting.com, our blog at http://www.phcconsulting.com/WordPress, or Peggy’s LinkedIn page for more information.

With the cutbacks in Human Resources and the fewer jobs to work with out there, contingency recruiters are working even harder to fill those jobs.  You may be asking what is a contingency recruiter and how do I work with them?
A contingency recruiter is a third party recruiter, often referred to as a headhunter.  They are an outside recruiter, or third party, which has partnered to work with a Human Resources department to help them fill their positions.  They usually work with multiple companies at one time and often times they specialize in a particular industry.  As with any industry, there are honest headhunters and those that are unethical or dishonest.
Contingent recruiters will find you either from a variety of places, such as the job boards, LinkedIn, a referral or from an internet search if you have your resume posted on your personal website.  When you agree to work with a recruiter, they will be submitting your resume to their client company for a position they’ve been asked to fill.  From that point forward, most of your communication will be through the headhunter, including interview arrangements and salary negotiations.  The client company will not be given your contact information unless you give it to them during the interview.  The headhunter is paid by the client company, usually a percentage of the first years salary.
Here are some things to consider when working with a headhunter:
Know with whom you are dealing – Get as much information from the recruiter as you can to find out if they are someone that you want to represent you.  Make sure they are a legitimate recruiter with a solid reputation.  Ask around to people in your network to see if anyone has had a good or bad experience working with the recruiter.  Ask them for references before you commit to allowing them to represent you.
Ask questions - What is the relationship with the client?  Have they placed anyone with that client before?  Who is on their client list?  How long have they been a recruiter?  What is the best way for you to work together?  Ask enough questions to feel you are comfortable working with this person.
Find out where they are submitting your resume – many recruiters will not tell you the name of the company to which they are submitting your resume.  However, you may have already submitted your resume to the company, in which case the recruiter wouldn’t get paid.  As early in the process as you can, find out the name of the company – it may not be until the recruiter submits your resume.  This is their way of covering their bases so that you don’t back door them.
Don’t back door them - This means that once you find out the name of the client, you submit your resume via their website either before or at the same time as the headhunter does.  What happens in this case, is if the client wants to play hard ball and cut out the recruiter, they can say that you have submitted your resume independently of their service.  That means the recruiter doesn’t get paid for their hard work in finding you and pre-qualifying you.  Be fair to the recruiter and let them represent you once you know the name of the company.  After all, you may not have known about the lead until the recruiter told you, so they deserve the credit.
Be honest with them - once you determine that this is a recruiter with whom you’d like to work, consider professional work ethics.  Be honest with them every step of the way.  They could be your best advocate, because they are motivated to get a placement.  However, they may also have other candidates in the loop, so don’t assume they are loyal to just you.  Tell them if you have been contacted by another recruiter.  Tell them if you have another offer.  Tell them if you have a friend at the company who has already submitted your resume.  Tell them the truth throughout the process to keep your karmic slate clean.
Don’t put all your eggs in one basket - Last, once you’ve been contacted by a headhunter, don’t assume they are out there combing the job boards for you.  You still need to proceed with your search as you normally would.  Tell the recruiter that you want to be notified if they are going to submit your resume to a new company.  Partner with the recruiter, but don’t limit yourself.
Working with a headhunter can be a great way to find a new position.  If you follow these guidelines, you should be able to nurture a positive working relationship with a headhunter and have a mutually rewarding outcome.

Job work is a wide phenomenon in production of goods and services. It is encouraged as it helps in cost control, specialization and extension of industrialization.

A job worker is engaged in processing material, supplied by principal manufacturers on job work basis. Such job work is covered under Business auxiliary service attracting service tax, when the process does not amount to manufacture. However, Notification 8/2005-S.T. dated 01.03.2005 exempt such job work on the condition that the processed material is returned to the principal manufacturer for further manufacture, on which finally duty is payable.

Sometimes job work may amount to manufacture. In such situation, Central Excise duty is payable. However, such payment of duty is exempted under Notification 214/86 or under Cenvat Credit Rules, if the processed material is returned to the principal manufacture, on which finally duty will be paid by the principal manufacturer.

While doing the job work, a job worker uses some of his inputs/input services. The purpose of this paper to examine as to whether the job worker is eligible for cenvat credit on inputs and input services used in providing such exempted job work. The other question arises as to how he can utilize this credit or how can he pass on credit to the principal manufacturer.

Job work is a widely followed practice. In this practice a principal manufacturer sends raw materials to job worker for various processing. In this processing, the job worker uses some consumables, minor materials, capital goods and input services.

This process involved in job work may amounts to manufacture, in which case Central Excise duty is payable, or may not amount to manufacture, in which case service tax is payable under the head business auxiliary service.

When processed goods after job work is returned to the principal manufacturer, which is further used by the principal manufacturer in further production on which ultimately Central Excise duty is paid; such job work is exempted from payment of Central Excise duty vide Notification 214/86 or under Cenvat Credit Rules & Service Tax is exempted under Notification 8/2005.

The first issue which is to be decided as to whether the person providing this exempted job work can Cenvat Credit or Not?

The job-worker is carrying job-work in terms of Central Excise & Service Tax law and procedures. Central Excise or service tax law and procedure does not prohibit a job worker from utilizing other inputs or input services in addition to raw material received by him from the principal manufacturer. There is no bar under in Central Excise from using own material in addition to material supplied by the principle manufacturer as this view is also held in Shakti Insulated Wires Ltd  Vs. CCE [1999 (114) ELT 424] further, it is submitted that a jobworker, after using his own inputs used in the job-work of the goods/raw materials can clear the said goods/raw materials to the principle manufacturer without payment of duty after availing the Cenvat credit on the inputs used by him, provided, the duty ultimately gets paid by the principle manufacturer.

In other words, a job-worker can avail Cenvat credit on the inputs/input services used by him in undertaking job-work and after availing Cenvat credit on such inputs/input services can clear the goods to the principle manufacturer without payment of duty only when, the duty is finally paid by the principle manufacturer. In this case, the duty does not get paid at the job-worker’s end at the time of clearence of the goods, but ultimately gets paid at the manufacturer’s end.

In the instant case the final product after the job-work is liable to excise duty and not exempted from duty.

Similar issue arose before Tribunal in case of Jindal Polymers Vs. CCE, Meerut-III [2001 (135) ELT 657] where it was held that the job-worker is entitled to cenvat credit on inputs used in the manufacture or processing of polymer/polyester chips on job-work, cleared without payment of duty to the parent manufacturer for manufacture of polyester/polymer filament yarn under notification no. 214/86 as polyester/polymer filament yarn being chargeable to excise duty.

The issue was examined by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pune [2005 (183) ELT 353] the larger bench of the Hon’ble Tribunal held that,

“In only case of Escorts Ltd. v. CC Ex, Delhi [2003 (160) E.L.T. 623 (Tri-Del.)] while interpreting Rule 57C of the Central Excise Rules, the Tribunal rejected the appellants claim of Modvat credit of duty paid on the inputs used in the manufacture of the parts, which were cleared without payment of duty to, appellant’s other unit under Chapter X procedure and utilised in the manufacture of tractor which were cleared on payment of duty by observing that since no duty was paid on the part at the time of clearance, Rule 57C will apply and no Modvat credit would be admissible. However, the said decision was subsequently reversed by the Supreme Court as reported in Escort v. C.C.Ex. [2004 (171) E.L.T. 145 (S.C.)]. For appreciation, we reproduce paragraphs 8 & 9 of the said decision.

It is to be seen that the whole purpose of the Notification and the Rules is to streamlines the process of payment of duty and to prevent the cascading effect if duty is levied both on the inputs and the finished goods. Rule 57D(2), which has been extracted hereinabove, shows that in the manufacture of a final product an intermediate product may also come into existence. Thus in cases where intermediate product may also come into existence. Thus in cases where intermediate product comes into existence, even though no duty has been chargeable to Nil rate of duty, credit would still be allowed so long as duty is paid on the final product. In cases of manufacturers like the Appellants the final product is the tractor. The intermediate product would be parts which are manufactured for being used in the tractor. In such a case the parts would not be the final product. Thus Rule 57C would have no application. The mere fact that the parts are cleared from one factory of the Appellants to another factory of the Appellants would not disentitle the Appellant from claiming benefit of Notification No. 217/86-C.E., dated 2nd April, 1986. As stated above, the Notification itself clarifies that the inputs can be used within the factory of production or in any other factory of the same manufacturer.”

By applying the ratio of the above decision, it becomes clear that Modvat credit of duty paid on the inputs used in the manufacture of final product cleared without payment of duty for further utilisation in the manufacture of final product, which are cleared on payment of duty by the principal manufacturer, would not be hit by provision of Rule 57C. Inasmuch as, the matter stands decided by the Honourable Supreme Court.

Similar view has also been taken in Bajaj Tempo Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pune [1994 (69) ELT 122], J.K. Synthetics Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur, [1996 (87) ELT 389.

In Shkti Insulated wires Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Custom Mumbai-V [2002 (149) ELT 668] the Hon’ble tribunal held that,

“2.The appellant? is engaged in the manufacture of paper covered copper strips falling under chapter sub-heading 8544 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. They manufactured the said products on a job work basis and also on their own account. The appellant sometimes received the inputs i.e. copper wires and/or rods from their principal manufacturer which, after processing by the appellant, are returned to their principal manufacturer under the provisions of Rule 57F(3) of the Central Excise Rules. When they clear such types of materials after processing, they do not pay duty as the duty on the final products are paid by the principal manufacturer. As far as the goods i.e. paper covered copper strips manufactured and finally cleared by the appellant on their own account, they pay duty on clearance. Show cause notice was issued charging the appellant that Modvat credit obtained by the appellant was inadmissible on the ground that they have availed inadmissible Modvat credit on insulated craft paper used in the processing of copper wire/rods received under the provisions of Rule 57F(3) which were further processed and cleared as paper covered copper strips without payment of duty under the provisions of Rule 57F(3) as it comes under the provisions of Rule 57C of the Rules. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the demand. On appeal, the appellate authority confirmed the order-in-original. Hence the present appeals.

3.The learned? advocate for the appellant invited my attention to the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Jindal Polymers v. CCE – 2001 (135) E.L.T. 657 (T) = 2001 (43) RLT 680 where under similar circumstances the two member bench, after referring to the earlier judgment of the Tribunal, has upheld the claim of the job worker. Learned DR reiterates the impugned orders. I have considered the rival submissions and I am of the view that the said judgment is squarely applicable to the present case. I therefore allow the Appeal E/3264/2000, setting aside the impugned order with consequential relief.

4.As far as the? other Appeal E/3265/2000 is concerned, the inputs which the appellant manufactured have been captively consumed for the manufacture of final products which have been cleared by the appellant themselves and the said final product has also been cleared on job work basis. The circumstances, in my view, is also covered by the judgment of the Tribunal in Jindal Polymers case (supra). Hence this appeal also stands allowed, ordering consequential relief, after setting aside the impugned order.

It is to be noted that the case has been affirmed by the Supreme Court as reported in [2003 (151) ELT A89]. The case has also been affirmed by larger bench of the Tribunal Judgment in case of Sretlite Ltd quoted supra.

In Bharat Friz Werner Ltd v. CCE [2005 (191) ELT 1009], Hon’ble Tribunal held that,

“We have gone through the records of the case carefully. The appellants received certain dutiable inputs and manufactured machines. They utilised these machines for job work. After job work, the goods were sent under 57F(4) Challan to the principal manufacturers. The department is of the view that the machines manufactured by the appellant are exclusively used in the manufacture of the exempted goods. Therefore, the inputs are not entitled for Cenvat credit. In other words, the department is equating goods sent under 57F(4) challan with exempted goods. This is not correct. The goods, which are sent to principal manufacturer, are not exempted goods. Ultimately, they would be cleared on payment of duty. Hence, the reasoning adopted by the department is not correct. Moreover, all the case laws cited by the appellant are very relevant in deciding this issue. In the case of KSH International, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue appeal and held that clearance of goods on job work does not amount to clearance under full exemption or at Nil rate of duty. The ratio of this decision is squarely applicable to the present case. Under these circumstances, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order.”

Recently the proposition has been followed in following case:

CCE Banglore v. South India Wire Products [2008 (228) ELT 290] R M Polypack v. CCE, Allahabad [2008 (226) ELT 591] CCE Mumbai v. National Standard [2008 (226) ELT 431] Shri Uma Foundaries v. CCE Kolkata [2008 (222) ELT 317]

In view of these binding judgment and settled position of law, following legal principles emerges:

Goods cleared under job work exemption are not exempted goods, as ultimately duty is paid by the principal manufacturer. The job worker is permitted to use his own capital goods/inputs/input services in the job work. When the job worker uses his own capital goods/inputs/input services in job work, he is entitled to take credit of duty on those capital goods/inputs/input services.

In view of this I am of the opinion that the a job worker, in abovesaid cisrcumstances is eligible to take Cenvat Credit on inputs and input services used in doing job work, on which ultimately duty burden will be discharged by the principal manufacturer.

As it is obvious that a job worker can take credit, the next question arises as to how the credit is to be utilized. In one situation the job worker may also be manufacturing on his own behalf, and he can utilize the credit for payment of duty on his own manufactured goods. If this is not possible, he may not avail the Service Tax exemption notification, and may opt to pay service tax on job charges, thereby passing on Cenvat Credit.

NOTIFICATION 8/2005-ST DATED 01.02.2005- CAN IT BE IMPOSED ON SERVICE PROVIDER:

It is a settled principle that an conditional exemption notification cannot be imposed on an assessee. The view has been upheld by Tribunal in case of Remedies Pharma v. CCE [1998 (101) ELT 344], CCE v. VIP Industry [1998 (103) ELT 95], Steelco Gujrat v. CCE [2000 (122) ELT 381] and numerous other cases.

The Notification 8/2005 is a conditional notification, conditions being,

“Provided that the said exemption shall apply only in cases where such goods are produced using raw materials or semi-finished goods supplied by the client and goods so produced are returned back to the said client for use in or in relation to manufacture of any other goods falling under the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986), as amended by the Central Excise Tariff (Amendment) Act, 2004 (5 of 2005), on which appropriate duty of excise is payable.”

As the exemption is conditional, it is the option of the assessee either to avail the exemption or not. In view of this, I am of the opinion that an assessee may refuse to avail the benefit of this notification and opt to pay service tax on output service of job work.

In view of these, the job worker is entitled to take cenvat credit on inputs, capital goods and input services while providing job work. Such credit is available, irrespective of the fact that whether he avails the benefit of exemption notification 8/2005-ST dated 01.03.2005 or not.

The other option available to the assessee is not to avail service tax exemption 8/2005-ST dated 01.03.2005 and avail cenvat credit in inputs, capital goods and input services. In this case the job worker shall be paying service tax on job work done.

Rajesh Kumar, Advocate

Incoming search terms:

• how to avail cenvat credit on job work