2008 (1) TMI 105 - AT - Service Tax

Activity of powder coating the furniture, electric panel boards, metal cabinets, stabilizers, etc. on job work basis in view of amendment in definition of Business Auxiliary Services from 16.6.05, impugned process is liable to Service Tax , provided these processes do not amount to manufacture this amendment is applicable to instant case but as per not. 29/07 value of the goods & materials sold to the customer should be excluded(exempted) matter remanded for calculation of tax liability

Summary

Issues:
Leviability of Service Tax under "Business Auxiliary Services" on powder coating processes undertaken by the appellants.

Analysis:
The appeals were filed against Orders-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax. The issue involved in both appeals was the leviability of Service Tax under "Business Auxiliary Services" on the processes undertaken by the appellants. The appellants were engaged in powder coating activities on various metallic items supplied by their clients on a job work basis. The amendment in the definition of "Business Auxiliary Services" included production or processing of goods for clients, not amounting to manufacture, under the purview of Service Tax liability.

The DGCEI clarified that powder coating falls under "Business Auxiliary Services" and does not amount to manufacture. The Revenue cited case laws where similar activities were held not to amount to manufacture, such as galvanization and electroplating processes. The Tribunal agreed with the Revenue that powder coating does not amount to manufacture, making the appellants liable to pay Service Tax on the activity. The appellants sought exemption of the cost of materials from Service Tax payment, which was considered under a relevant Notification.

After a careful consideration, the Tribunal found that the appellants were entitled to exemption under Notification No.29/2007, which excluded the value of goods and materials sold to customers. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the Original Authority for re-calculation of Service Tax liability after deducting the value of goods sold to customers. The appellants were directed to provide evidence of the value of goods sold. The penalty imposed was deemed unjustified, and the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and remanding it for re-computation of tax liability within two months.