9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (1) TMI 711 - AT - Service TaxLevy of Service tax - Business Auxiliary Services - Cargo Handling Services - handling and processing of slag mixture generated by steel companies (clients) during the manufacturing process undertaken by them - period prior to 16.06.2005 - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT - For the period prior to 16.06.2005, the definition of BAS under Section 65(19)(v) of the Act, inter-alia, mean any service in relation to production of goods on behalf of the client. The Principal Bench in assessee s own case, M/S FERRO SCRAP NIGAM LIMITED VERSUS CCE, RAIPUR 2014 (1) TMI 1049 - CESTAT NEW DELHI as relied by the assessee, has already observed in identical set of facts that there is no third person in the instant case, whereas the tax can be levied under BAS only in case the service is provided on behalf of the client i.e. there would be involvement of three parties. Further, for the period after 16.06.2005, the Tribunal in their own case as reported in M/S FERRO SCRAP NIGAM LTD. VERSUS COMMR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE SERVICE TAX, RANCHI 2019 (2) TMI 766 - CESTAT KOLKATA , has held that the assessee is entitled to exemption under Notification no. 8/2005 dated 01.03.2005. Cargo Handling services - shifting, transportation, loading and unloading from one p lace to another inside the steel plant of the client itself - HELD THAT - The Tribunal in their own case M/S FERRO SCRAP NIGAM LIMITED VERSUS CCE, RAIPUR AND VICE-VERSA 2014 (1) TMI 1051 - CESTAT NEW DELHI where it was held that service of shifting, transportation or raw materials, waste materials, and finished products from one place to another, inside the plant itself, does not fall under the taxing category of Cargo Handling Services. T he demand raised vide the impugned adjudication order cannot be sustained and hence, the same is set aside - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Demand of Service Tax under Business Auxiliary Services (BAS) and Cargo Handling Services (CHS). 2. Applicability of cum-tax benefit. 3. Imposition of penalty and invocation of extended period of limitation. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Demand of Service Tax under BAS and CHS: The assessee, a PSU engaged in handling and processing slag mixture for steel companies, was subjected to a Service Tax demand of ?5,90,40,393/- under BAS and CHS for the period April 2003 to March 2008. The Tribunal noted that the issue had already been decided in favor of the assessee in previous cases with identical facts. For the period prior to 16.06.2005, the demand under BAS was set aside by the Principal Bench at New Delhi, as the service provided did not involve a third party, which is a requisite for classification under BAS. The Tribunal cited the definition of BAS under Section 65(19)(v) of the Act, which requires the production of goods on behalf of the client, involving three parties. Since the assessee's activity did not meet this criterion, the demand was not sustainable. For the period after 16.06.2005, the Tribunal held that the processing services were exempted under Notification No. 08/2005-ST, as the processed scrap was returned to the client for further use in manufacturing dutiable goods. The Tribunal referenced a certificate from SAIL, Bokaro Steel Plant, confirming the end-use of the processed scrap, thus entitling the assessee to the exemption. Regarding the demand under CHS, the Tribunal referred to its previous decisions and the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court's affirmation that shifting, transportation, loading, and unloading within the plant do not fall under CHS. Thus, the demand under CHS was also set aside. 2. Applicability of Cum-tax Benefit: The Department's appeal contested the cum-tax benefit allowed by the Commissioner. However, since the Tribunal set aside the entire demand of Service Tax under both BAS and CHS, the issue of cum-tax benefit became moot. The Tribunal rejected the Department's appeal, stating that there could be no demand for Service Tax, thereby nullifying the need to address the cum-tax benefit. 3. Imposition of Penalty and Invocation of Extended Period of Limitation: The assessee contested the imposition of penalties under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, and the invocation of the extended period of limitation, arguing the absence of fraud or suppression. The Tribunal, having set aside the demand on merits, did not find it necessary to delve into the penalty and limitation issues. Consequently, the penalties imposed in the impugned order were also set aside. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, setting aside the Service Tax demand under both BAS and CHS, along with the penalties. The Department's appeal regarding the cum-tax benefit was rejected. The judgment concluded with the Tribunal pronouncing the decision in favor of the assessee, granting consequential relief as per law.
|
