9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 29X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that: - reliance placed in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KERALA Versus TARA AGENCIES [2007 (7) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], where it was held that the respondent's activity amounts to processing only and the activity does not amount to either production or manufacture - the activity of the appellants would not amount to manufacture - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Finance Act 1994. Aggrieved by the non-imposition of penalty under Section 76, the department filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant had also filed appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide order impugned herein upheld the confirmation of demand of service tax, interest and penalties imposed. The appeal filed by department against non-imposition of penalty under Section 76 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ral Excise, Chandigarh - 2012(27) S.T.R. 37 (Tri.-Del.). Auto Coats Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, (S.T.), Coimbatore - 2009(15) S.T.R. 398 (Tri.-Chennai) 3. The Learned AR reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 4. Heard both sides. The issue in whether the activity of blending and packing of tea on behalf of client would fall within the definition of Business Auxiliary Service. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... controversy involved in this case revolves around construction and meaning of terms "manufacture", "production" and "process", therefore, we deem it appropriate to deal with these terms in detail as enumerated in various dictionaries and by the decided cases to properly comprehend the distinction in these terms. On clear construction and interpretation of Section 35 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
