2023 (3) TMI 1173 - AT - Service Tax

Classification of services - arrangement of job work by the appellant for M/s. Gharda Chemicals Limited in their factory - HELD THAT - There is only difference of period in the present case and the case which was decided by this Tribunal in GUJARAT INSECTICIDES LTD VERSUS C.C.E. S.T. -SURAT-II 2023 (2) TMI 781 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD . Therefore, except for the period, all the facts are same and therefore as per the judicial discipline wherein this Tribunal has held that the activity of the appellant is indeed manufacture of excisable goods in terms of section 2(f) of CEA, 1944. As per the definition of business auxiliary service manufacture of excisable goods in terms of section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is clearly excluded from the definition of business auxiliary service. For this reason also, the demand of service tax is not sustainable. In view of the decision in the appellant s own case, the issue is no longer res-integra - appeal allowed - decided in favour of appellant.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issue involved in the present case is whether the activities conducted by the appellant for a company amount to services of Management, Maintenance, or Repair.

Comprehensive details:

Issue 1: Classification of activities as Management, Maintenance, or Repair service
The Tribunal considered the previous decision where it was held that the appellant's activities do not fall under Management, Maintenance, or Repair service. The appellant was found to be the service provider, while the company was the service recipient. The appellant used its own machinery to produce goods for the company on a job work basis. The Tribunal emphasized that the activities were purely for manufacturing excisable goods and not for providing services under the mentioned category. The demand for service tax under this classification was deemed unsustainable.

Issue 2: Exclusion from Business Auxiliary Service
The Tribunal noted that even if the activities were considered as business auxiliary service, they would be exempt under the relevant notification. The activities were found to be the manufacture of excisable goods, which is explicitly excluded from the definition of business auxiliary service. Therefore, the demand for service tax was also deemed unsustainable on this ground.

Issue 3: Manufacturing of excisable goods
The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's activities constituted the manufacture of excisable goods as per the Central Excise Act, 1944. This further supported the argument that the demand for service tax was not sustainable.

In light of the above findings and the precedent set in the appellant's previous case, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

(Separate Judgment delivered by Judges: No)