2015 (7) TMI 27 - AT - Central Excise

Manufacturing activity or taxable service - Activity of fabricating various iron and steel items by cutting, drilling and making holes etc. - Held that - confirmation of excise duty by invoking longer period of limitation, without going into the legal issue as to whether the activity amount to manufacture or not, would not be appropriate inasmuch as the appellant was admittedly discharging the service tax liability on the activity undertaken by them with the due knowledge of the Revenue. As regards service tax, learned advocate fairly agrees that the same was collected from their customers but not deposited with the Revenue. In view of the above, we direct the applicants to deposit ₹ 30,00,000 within a period of twelve weeks - stay granted towards demand of duty of excise.

Issues: Confirmation of central excise duty, imposition of penalties, liability for service tax, longer period of limitation, compliance with deposit directive.

Confirmation of Central Excise Duty:
The judgment addresses the confirmation of central excise duty amounting to Rs. 2,53,76,851/- against the appellant, along with a service tax of Rs. 26,51,065/-, as imposed by the Commissioner. The appellant was engaged in fabricating iron and steel items on a job work basis for principal manufacturers. Initially, the appellants registered with the service tax department and paid service tax from April 2008 onwards, with regular returns filed. However, a Central Excise Officer later opined that the activity amounted to manufacture, leading the appellants to start paying central excise duty on their final products. The duty was paid only for clearances to some principal manufacturers, and service tax collection continued without depositing it with the Revenue. The Tribunal noted the Revenue's failure to object earlier and directed the appellants to deposit Rs. 30,00,000/- within twelve weeks, considering the appellant's compliance with service tax and the need for further legal clarity on the manufacturing aspect.

Imposition of Penalties:
The judgment mentions penalties imposed on the appellants in addition to the confirmed central excise duty and service tax liabilities. However, the focus of the Tribunal's decision primarily revolves around the duty and tax liabilities, the nature of the activity undertaken by the appellants, and the compliance with the directive to deposit a specific amount within a specified timeframe. The Tribunal did not delve deeply into the penalty aspect but emphasized the need for the appellants to address the central excise duty and service tax issues promptly.

Liability for Service Tax:
Regarding the liability for service tax, the Tribunal acknowledged that the appellants had collected service tax from their customers but failed to deposit it with the Revenue. The judgment highlighted the appellant's cessation of service tax payments from October 2010 onwards despite continued collection. The Tribunal's decision to direct the appellants to deposit a specific amount within a specified timeframe encompassed both the central excise duty and service tax liabilities, aiming to address the compliance aspect comprehensively.

Longer Period of Limitation:
The Tribunal briefly touched upon the issue of invoking a longer period of limitation for confirming the excise duty without delving deeply into the legal aspect of whether the activity constituted manufacture. The Tribunal emphasized the appellant's prior compliance with service tax obligations and the need for a balanced approach in addressing the central excise duty issue, considering the evolving circumstances and the Revenue's initial lack of objection to the service tax payments made by the appellants.

Compliance with Deposit Directive:
The Tribunal's final directive in the judgment focused on ensuring the appellants' compliance with the deposit requirement of Rs. 30,00,000/- within twelve weeks. This directive aimed to address the central excise duty and service tax liabilities promptly, reflecting the Tribunal's emphasis on regulatory compliance and financial obligations. The judgment concluded with the directive for compliance reporting on a specified date, outlining a clear roadmap for the appellants to resolve the tax-related issues effectively.

← Previous Next →