2025 (1) TMI 348 - AT - Service Tax

Nature of activity - service or manufacture - Process amounting to manufacture or Business Auxiliary Service? - powder coating of metals and articles of metals - HELD THAT - The Appellant has inter alia furnished before the Adjudicating Authority permissions letters to send the materials for job work since, admittedly, the principals were SEZ units. Strangely, however, the Adjudicating Authority has not at all given due consideration to the said permission letters granted by the Authorized Officer for outsourcing the job work by the SEZ units to the Appellant herein. The said letters are clear in as much as, they indicate the purpose and also identify the entities to whom the job work was outsourced. On perusal of Notification No.8/2005 makes it clear that the goods received on job work should be used in the manufacture of goods on which appropriate duty is payable. The appellant has claimed that it had performed the job work as instructed by the SEZ units; the SEZ units did not dispute the job work executed by the Appellant for which both the parties did not dispute the payment / consideration and it is nowhere even disputed by the authorities below that the principals / SEZ units had used the said components that underwent the process of job work in the manufacture of final products which attract appropriate duty. There may be a doubt which is clearly out of context since, when the appellant had claimed to have delivered and the principals / SEZ units having not disputed the receipt of the same and that there has also been flow of consideration that too in cheque, that itself shows that the delivery is complete. But in any case, this aspect having been accepted by the Adjudicating Authority without any doubt and when there was no appeal by the Revenue, the impugned order to this extent is clearly arbitrary, uncalled for and beyond the appellate proceedings and it is also are in violation of the well settled principles of natural justice. Conclusion - The job worker / Appellant is entitled to the benefit of exemption Notification No.8/2005 and that the activity of the Appellant was not taxable under BAS. Appeal allowed.

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal question addressed in this judgment is: "Whether the demand of service tax on the appellant for the activity of powder coating of metals and articles of metals is justifiable?" This involves determining whether the activity qualifies as 'manufacture' under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and whether the appellant is entitled to the exemption benefit under Notification No.8/2005-ST dated 01.03.2005.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents:

The legal framework revolves around the interpretation of 'manufacture' under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the applicability of service tax exemption under Notification No.8/2005-ST. The adjudicating authority originally classified the appellant's activity under 'Business Auxiliary Service' (BAS), denying the exemption based on the activity not constituting 'manufacture'.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning:

The tribunal scrutinized the adjudicating authority's decision, particularly the oversight regarding permission letters issued by SEZ units for outsourcing job work. The tribunal found these letters crucial as they evidenced the intent and authorization for the appellant's activities, which the lower authority failed to consider adequately.

Key Evidence and Findings:

The appellant provided permission letters from SEZ units, which authorized the job work and indicated the purpose and entities involved. The tribunal noted that both parties, including the SEZ units, did not dispute the execution of the job work or the payment involved, which was crucial in establishing the legitimacy of the appellant's claims.

Application of Law to Facts:

The tribunal applied the provisions of Notification No.8/2005-ST, which allows exemption for goods used in the manufacture of duty-paid final products. The appellant's activities were aligned with this requirement, as the SEZ units utilized the processed components in manufacturing final products subject to appropriate duty.

Treatment of Competing Arguments:

The tribunal addressed the adjudicating authority's misapplication of Notification No.4/2004-ST, clarifying that the appellant's claim was under Notification No.8/2005-ST. The tribunal also dismissed the Commissioner (Appeals)'s doubts about the physical delivery of goods, emphasizing the undisputed receipt and payment for the job work.

Conclusions:

The tribunal concluded that the appellant's activity did not fall under 'Business Auxiliary Service' and was entitled to the exemption under Notification No.8/2005-ST. The tribunal's decision was supported by precedents from higher judicial fora, reinforcing the appellant's entitlement to the exemption.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning:

"We therefore hold that the job worker / Appellant is entitled to the benefit of exemption Notification No.8/2005 (supra) and that the activity of the Appellant was not taxable under BAS."

Core Principles Established:

The judgment establishes that activities authorized and performed under SEZ permissions, where the processed goods are used in the manufacture of duty-paid final products, qualify for exemption under Notification No.8/2005-ST. It also underscores the importance of considering all relevant documents and permissions in tax exemption cases.

Final Determinations on Each Issue:

The tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential benefits as per law. The decision affirmed the appellant's right to the exemption benefit and negated the service tax demand under BAS for the powder coating activity.

← Previous Next →