9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (9) TMI 397 - AT - Service TaxBusiness Auxiliary Services - Job worker - production of goods on behalf of the clients which does not amount to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - appellant is engaged in electroplating (gold plating) of watch straps for various parties on job work basis - activity undertaken by the appellants in this case was similar to the one as existed in the case of Auto Coats (2009 -TMI - 34272 - CESTAT, CHENNAI) - it cannot be said that appellants have under taken job work on behalf of the clients, in view of the fact that there were only two parties to the transaction in this case, whereas where the production is on behalf of the clients, there would be three parties. Since, services undertaken by the appellants is not covered by the definition, no service tax is attracted - order is set-aside and appeal is allowed
Issues: Scope of Business Auxiliary Services under Section 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994; Whether electroplating process amounts to production or manufacture; Liability towards service tax on job work basis; Imposition of penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Act.
Scope of Business Auxiliary Services: The judgment revolves around the scope of Business Auxiliary Services as defined under Section 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant was engaged in electroplating watch straps on a job work basis for various parties. The officers of Central Excise visited the appellant's premises, leading to a show cause notice confirming a service tax demand and imposing penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Act. Electroplating Process - Production or Manufacture: The appellant argued that the electroplating process undertaken by them did not amount to production. They contended that the process fell short of production and that the definition of 'Manufacture' under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act includes processes ancillary to manufacturing. The appellant also disputed the introduction of a new category between processing and manufacture by the Commissioner. They claimed that since the production was not on behalf of any client, the job work undertaken was not liable to service tax. Liability Towards Service Tax: The Tribunal considered the submissions and referred to a previous decision where it was held that a process like epoxy coating, even if not amounting to manufacture, would be liable to service tax under Business Auxiliary Services. The Tribunal emphasized that the process undertaken by the appellant could be considered as production, especially when done on behalf of clients as per the terms of the contract between the parties involved. Penalties Imposed: The appellant argued against the imposition of penalties, stating that they were still trying to understand the implications of the levy when the officers visited their premises. They highlighted that they had applied for registration before paying the amount demanded. The Tribunal, however, found that the appellant's activities did not fall under the definition of Business Auxiliary Services as they were not undertaken on behalf of clients, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and allowing the appeal. Conclusion: The judgment clarified the scope of Business Auxiliary Services, emphasizing that activities undertaken on behalf of clients attract service tax liability. It distinguished between processes that amount to production and those that do not, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant due to the lack of involvement of a third party client in the job work undertaken. The penalties imposed were also set aside based on the circumstances surrounding the appellant's compliance efforts and the nature of the activities in question.
|
