2012 (8) TMI 531 - AT - Service Tax

Business Auxiliary Services - Job work - appellants working under job work, under the provisions of Rule 4(5)(A) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, converting the steel plates supplied by M/s S Ltd into steel shells, agitators, baffles etc. and sending the goods back to the said M/s S - Revenue contending the same to be under BAS - period prior to 16.06.2005 - Held that - There is no dispute that the appellants were producing goods for the clients and not on behalf of the clients as can be understood from the fact that the appellants are manufacturing goods as job workers. Scope of Business Auxiliary Services as defined u/s 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994 was expanded to include the production of goods on behalf of the clients which does not amount to manufacture u/s 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 w.e.f 16.05.2005. Since, services undertaken by the appellants is not covered by the definition, no service tax is attracted. Accordingly, impugned order is set-aside. See Sonic Watches Limited (2010 (9) TMI 397 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD) and Auto coats Vs CCE(ST),COIMBATORE 2009 (4) TMI 112 - CESTAT, CHENNAI - Decided in favor of assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Waiver of pre-deposit of service tax and penalties.
2. Classification of services under Business Auxiliary Services.
3. Applicability of the definition of Business Auxiliary Services during the material period.
4. Interpretation of "production or processing of goods for or on behalf of the client."

Detailed Analysis:

1. Waiver of Pre-deposit of Service Tax and Penalties:
The appellants filed stay petitions seeking waiver of pre-deposit of service tax and penalties under various sections of the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal allowed the stay petitions for waiver of pre-deposit of the amounts involved and proceeded to take up the appeals for final disposal.

2. Classification of Services under Business Auxiliary Services:
The facts reveal that the appellants carried out job work by converting steel plates into steel shells, agitators, baffles, etc., and returned these to the client, M/s. Swiss Glasscoat Equipments Limited. The Revenue authorities classified these activities under Business Auxiliary Services, leading to the issuance of show cause notices and confirmation of service tax demands by the adjudicating authority, upheld by the first appellate authority.

3. Applicability of the Definition of Business Auxiliary Services During the Material Period:
The primary issue was whether the definition of Business Auxiliary Services, as it stood during the material period, could be applied for the levy of service tax on the appellants' activities. The definition of Business Auxiliary Services includes "production or processing of goods for or on behalf of the client." The Tribunal noted that the appellants were producing goods for the client and not on behalf of the client, thus questioning the applicability of the definition.

4. Interpretation of "Production or Processing of Goods for or on Behalf of the Client":
The Tribunal referred to the case of Sonic Watches Limited vs. CCE Vadodara, which clarified that the scope of Business Auxiliary Services was expanded to include the production of goods on behalf of the clients, which does not amount to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal concluded that the appellants were producing goods for the client, not on behalf of the client, and thus, their activities did not fall under the definition of Business Auxiliary Services during the material period.

The Tribunal also cited the case of Auto Coats v. CCE (ST), Coimbatore, where it was held that activities undertaken by a person for another were brought under Business Auxiliary Services only with effect from 16-6-2005. Prior to this date, processing of goods for customers did not attract service tax unless it involved three parties, indicating production on behalf of the client.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the appellants' activities did not attract service tax under the definition of Business Auxiliary Services as it stood during the material period. The impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed. The Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation that the appellants were producing goods for the client and not on behalf of the client, thus falling outside the scope of the definition applicable during the relevant period.

← Previous Next →