9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 837X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. Thus, the activity of the appellant has become taxable with effect from 16.6.2005. On perusal of records only one invoice falls beyond the period of 16.6.2005 upon which the service tax levy has to be sustained, which we hereby do - In respect of demand prior to the period 16.6.2005, for the discussions made above, the demand is unsustainable - appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant. - ST/271/2008 - Final Order No. 41649 / 2017 - Dated:- 10-8-2017 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member ( Judicial ) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member ( Technical ) Ms. Minchu Mariam Punnose, Advocate for the Appellant Shri K.P. Muralidharan, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Per Bench The issue involved is whether the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bber lining would not amount to production of goods on behalf of the client and at the most can be only processing of goods. She relied upon the judgment in the case of Auto Coats Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore 2009 (15) STR 398 to support her argument. She also relied upon this judgment to contend that with effect from 16.62005, the definition has been amended to include production or processing of goods for, or on behalf of, the client . With effect from 16.6.2005, they are liable to pay service tax on the activities carried out by them and have been discharging the service tax and she submitted that only one invoice dated 28.6.2005 for an amount of ₹ 1,48,336/- would fall after the period 16.6.2005 and the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hemselves for a fee. It was only with effect from 16-6-2005 that such activities undertaken by a person for another was brought under BAS. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the appellants, during the material period, which is prior to 16-6-2005, the appellants had engaged in certain activities which could be described as processing of goods for its customers. By virtue of the language of the entry, during the material period, unless a person was engaged by another for processing the goods entrusted by a third person such activity would not be exigible to service tax. In the circumstances the impugned order is set aside and this appeal allowed. 7. Later amendment was brought forth with effect from 16.6.2005 to include the pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
