9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 270X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e decisions cited supra. However, the contention of the appellant that it is only an intermediate process and the goods after slitting/cutting were used in further manufacture of SS pipes/tubes on which duty liability is discharged, merits consideration. Notification No. 8/2005-ST provides that in the case of service undertaken by way of job-work and the goods are returned to the original supplier for further manufacture, the benefit of the said exemption would apply. This aspect has not been examined by the adjudicating authority at all - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee. - ST/88621/13 - - - Dated:- 9-12-2013 - P R Chandrasekharan And Anil Choudhary, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Badri Narayanan, Adv. For t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 27 (Tri-Mum) where in a similar situation, it was held that in the case of movement of goods under Rule 4(5)(a) procedure, Service Tax provisions would be inapplicable. In the case of Deshmukh Services Vs. CCE, Nagpur also, the same view was taken. However, in the said case, the matter was remanded back to the adjudicating authority for considering the eligibility to exemption under Notification No. 8/2005-ST dated 1.3.2005 which provides for exemption from Service Tax in respect of job-work undertaken on behalf of the manufacturer and the goods are returned for further manufacture. It is accordingly contended that even if the activity is held to be a taxable service and not manufacture, the appellant would be eligible for the benefit of No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the goods after slitting/cutting were used in further manufacture of SS pipes/tubes on which duty liability is discharged, merits consideration. Notification No. 8/2005-ST provides that in the case of service undertaken by way of job-work and the goods are returned to the original supplier for further manufacture, the benefit of the said exemption would apply. This aspect has not been examined by the adjudicating authority at all. 6. In view of the above, we set aside the impugned order and remand the case back to the adjudicating authority to consider the matter afresh and pass the order in accordance with law giving the specific findings as to why the activity undertaken by the appellant is not eligible for the benefit of Notificatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
