2012 (9) TMI 413 - AT - Service Tax

Demand - Business auxiliary service - appellants carry out the process of grinding and smoothening the edges, called fettling of the rough castings, received from principal manufacturers who clear the goods after carrying out further processes Held that - Wordings of Clause (v) of Section 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994 did not cover processing of goods on job work basis which got covered by this clause, when the same was substituted by - production or processing of goods for, or on behalf of, the clients demand set aside

Summary

Issues:
Whether the activity of grinding and smoothening edges by clipping rough iron castings on job work basis attracts service tax under "Business auxiliary service" during a specific period.

Analysis:
During the period from 10-9-04 to 28-2-05, the issue revolved around whether the appellants' activity of grinding and smoothening edges of rough iron castings on job work basis attracted service tax under Section 65(105)(zzb) read with Section 65(19)(v) of the Finance Act, 1994. The jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner initially held that the activity was not taxable during the said period. However, the order was reversed by the C.C.E. (Appeals), imposing service tax demands and penalties on the appellants. The main contention was whether the activity fell under the taxable entry of "production of goods on behalf of clients which does not amount to manufacture."

The appellant's counsel argued that the taxable entry during the disputed period did not cover production on a job work basis but was applicable only when a person was engaged for processing goods entrusted by a third party. It was highlighted that the activity became taxable only after 16-5-05 when the relevant clause was replaced. The counsel relied on Tribunal judgments to support the claim that the activity was not taxable during the period in question. The impugned order was deemed unsustainable based on these arguments.

The learned SDR defended the impugned order by reiterating the findings of the C.C.E. (Appeals). However, the Tribunal carefully considered both sides' submissions and the records. It was established that the appellants' activity constituted processing not amounting to manufacture, which was not taxable during the disputed period. The Tribunal concurred with the appellant's argument and referred to previous Tribunal judgments to support the decision. It was concluded that the impugned order was not sustainable, setting it aside and allowing the appeals along with the stay applications.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, holding that the activity of grinding and smoothening edges of rough iron castings on a job work basis did not attract service tax during the specified period. The decision was based on the interpretation of relevant legal provisions and supported by previous Tribunal judgments, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and allowing the appeals.