2018 (8) TMI 808 - AT - Service Tax

Manufacture or Service? - appellants were engaged in job work and used of get raw material from the principal manufacturer - N/N. 214 of 1986 dated 25.03.1986 - Held that - The appellant has submitted a copy of undertaking given by the principal manufacturer under the said N/N. 214 of 1986 dated 25.03.1986 which indicates that the principal manufacturer undertook to pay Central Excise Duty arising out of the job work being done by the appellant. The said undertaking has been accepted by Revenue and the goods were received by appellant on job work Challans. The Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction over appellant did not have authority of independent assessment of activity of appellant - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Issues:
1. Whether the process carried out by the appellant amounts to manufacture.
2. Validity of the demand of service tax.
3. Jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner over the appellant's activity.
4. Decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) on the appeal by the appellant and the Revenue.

Analysis:
1. The appellants were engaged in job work and received raw material from the principal manufacturer under an undertaking submitted to the Central Excise Officers. The Revenue contended that the process by the appellant did not constitute manufacture, leading to a demand for service tax of ?5,30,458. The Original Authority upheld the demand, prompting appeals by both the appellant and the Revenue before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) issued two orders, rejecting the appellant's appeal and allowing the Revenue's appeal with a penalty. Both parties were aggrieved and approached the Tribunal for resolution.

2. Upon hearing both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal noted that the appellant had provided a copy of the undertaking from the principal manufacturer as per Notification No. 214 of 1986. This undertaking confirmed the principal manufacturer's responsibility to pay Central Excise Duty for the job work carried out by the appellant. The Revenue had accepted this undertaking, and the goods were received by the appellant based on job work Challans. Consequently, the Assistant Commissioner with jurisdiction over the appellant lacked the authority for an independent assessment of the appellant's activity. In light of this, the Tribunal set aside both impugned orders and allowed the appeals in favor of the appellant.

3. The Tribunal's decision highlighted the significance of the undertaking provided by the principal manufacturer and the acceptance of the same by the Revenue. This acknowledgment established the responsibility of the principal manufacturer for Central Excise Duty related to the job work undertaken by the appellant. The Tribunal's ruling emphasized the jurisdictional limitations of the Assistant Commissioner over the appellant's activities, reinforcing the importance of adherence to the terms of the undertaking and the associated regulatory framework.

4. The Tribunal's analysis underscored the procedural and jurisdictional aspects of the case, focusing on the acceptance of the undertaking and its implications for the assessment of Central Excise Duty. By overturning the decisions of the Commissioner (Appeals), the Tribunal clarified the boundaries of authority concerning the assessment of the appellant's job work activities and upheld the relevance of the undertaking in determining liability for Central Excise Duty. The judgment provided a nuanced interpretation of the legal framework governing job work arrangements and the obligations of principal manufacturers in such contexts, ensuring a fair and informed resolution of the dispute.

← Previous Next →