2013 (12) TMI 428 - AT - Service Tax

Demand of service tax - Assessee gets milk from different milk unions for use in manufacture of Ghee and Milk Powder for them - Revenue raised demand Business Auxiliary Service - Held that - appellant procures milk from different areas and no evidence came to record to show that such milk was supplied by any client. Such contrary factual aspect provides scope to understand that the appellant has been unreasonably brought to tax ambit. If the appellant procures milk itself for use in manufacture that totally out of scope of Service Tax law from levy of Service Tax. If it had been supplied milk by others for use in manufacture it falls in exclusionary category under Section 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994 - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Whether the activity of procuring milk for manufacturing Ghee and Milk Powder constitutes Business Auxiliary Service for taxation under the Finance Act, 1994.

Analysis:
The appellant argued that procuring milk from milk unions for manufacturing Ghee and Milk Powder does not amount to Business Auxiliary Service as it falls under the exclusion clause of Section 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant contended that since the service provided is manufacturing, it is beyond the scope of Service Tax imposition. The appellant highlighted that the activity carried out on behalf of entities like Mother Dairy should not be subjected to unreasonable taxation.

The Departmental Representative, on the other hand, argued that the appellant's actions supported the activities of others, thereby falling under the category of Business Auxiliary Service subject to taxation.

Upon hearing both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal noted that while the appellant procured milk from various sources for manufacturing purposes, there was no evidence to suggest that the milk was supplied by any client. This factual discrepancy led the Tribunal to conclude that the appellant had been unjustly brought under the tax net. The Tribunal emphasized that if the appellant procured milk for its own manufacturing processes, it would be outside the scope of Service Tax. Additionally, if the milk had been supplied by others for manufacturing, it would fall under the exclusionary category of Section 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the appeal and exempting them from the tax liability.

In conclusion, the judgment clarifies that the procurement of milk for manufacturing Ghee and Milk Powder does not constitute Business Auxiliary Service for taxation purposes under the Finance Act, 1994. The exclusionary provisions and the nature of the appellant's activities were crucial in determining the tax liability, ultimately resulting in the appeal being allowed in favor of the appellant.