9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (10) TMI 190 - AT - Service TaxBusiness Auxiliary Services - Job worker - Applicants were engaged in the manufacture of processing of scrap in the premises of their customers - Revenue was of the view that the assesses were engaged in rendering services of business auxiliary services particularly, production of goods on behalf of the applicants Held that - Following Sonic Watches Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara 2010 (9) TMI 397 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD and Rathour Engg. Works Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh 2012 (9) TMI 413 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI - Production of goods on behalf of the clients which does not amount to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - services undertaken by the appellants was not covered by the definition, no service tax was attracted Stay Granted.
Issues:
Waiver of predeposit of service tax and penalties under various sections of the Finance Act, 1994. Analysis: The judgment pertains to applications seeking waiver of predeposit of service tax amounting to Rs.37.61 lakhs and associated penalties imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, along with other penalties and a personal penalty of Rs.1,000 on an individual. The applicants, engaged in the manufacture and processing of scrap at a customer's premises, contested the Department's demand notice alleging provision of business auxiliary services from September 10, 2004, to February 28, 2005. The advocate for the applicants argued that under the un-amended provisions of business auxiliary service before June 16, 2005, the demand was not sustainable, citing precedents such as Sonic Watches Ltd. and Rathour Engg. Works. The Department's representative failed to present any contradictory decisions. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides and examining the records, found that the issue at hand was prima facie covered by the decisions in Sonic Watches Ltd. and Rathour Engg. Works. Consequently, the applicants were deemed to have made out a prima facie case for total waiver of duty and penalty. As a result, the predeposit of all dues adjudged was waived, and the recovery was stayed during the pendency of the appeal. The stay petitions were allowed, and the order was dictated and pronounced in open court by one of the judges.
|
