2017 (5) TMI 1347 - AT - Service Tax

Whether exemption provided for job work activities under N/n. 8/2005 dated 01.03.2005 should be considered as exempted service in terms of Rule 2(e) ibid for applicability of the embargo created in Rule 6 ibid? Held that - The services in this case were exempted from payment of service tax under N/N. 8/2005-ST dated 01.03.2005 on the condition that the goods produced by the job worker of using raw material or some semi finished goods should be returned back to the client for use in or in relation to manufacture of any other goods, on which appropriate excise duty is payable. On fulfillment of such conditions, the appellant was extended the benefit of non-payment of service tax. Such exemption though conditional, is availed by the appellant - the mischief of Rule 6(3) of the CCR, 2004 will get attracted - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Whether exemption for job work activities under Notification No.8/2005 should be considered as exempted service for the applicability of Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in Electroplating/painting on semi-finished goods, availed cenvat credit of service tax but did not pay service tax on taxable services provided to a client under Notification No.8/2005. The Department initiated proceedings against the appellant for wrongly utilized cenvat credit exceeding 20% of the tax payable. The original authority confirmed a demand along with penalties. The Tribunal considered whether the exemption under Notification No.8/2005 should be treated as exempted service under Rule 2(e) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

The term "exempted service" is defined as taxable services exempt from the whole service tax leviable, including services not taxable under Section 66 of the Finance Act, 1994. The services were exempted under Notification No.8/2005 on the condition that goods produced using raw material or semi-finished goods be returned to the client for further manufacturing. The appellant availed this conditional exemption, triggering Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

The appellant cited a case where job workers availing exemption under a Central Excise Notification were eligible for credit on input services. However, the Tribunal differentiated the present case from that precedent, stating that Notification No.8/2005 exempts service tax when the process does not amount to manufacture, without further follow-up tax liability on the principal manufacturer. This distinction led to the conclusion that the precedent for Central Excise duty exemption cannot be applied to determine the applicability of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

Based on the above analysis, the Tribunal found no error in the impugned order and dismissed the appellant's appeal. The judgment was pronounced in open court on 09.05.17.