9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 920X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... N as well as the impugned order has discussed, the leviability of Service tax only. With reference to the provisions, which were in existence prior to 01.07.2012. The adjudicating authority does not appear to have paid attention to the fact that the levy of Service Tax has been shifted to a negative list basis - Even under the new provisions w.e.f. 01.07.2012 we find that the activity undertaken by the appellant is specified under the negative list in Section 66D (f). Consequently, there is no justification for demand of Service Tax even for the period subsequent to 01.07.2012, even though, the relevant Notification No.34/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 has since been rescinded. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Service Tax App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Jain, the authorized representative of the Department. 3. The ld. Advocate submitted that the activities carried out by the appellant for the Banaskantha Dairy are the processes, which have been defined to be process of manufacture as per Chapter Note-6 to Chapter IV. Since such process have been defined as amounting to manufacture, in terms of Section 2 (f) (ii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the appellant is liable for payment of Central Excise duty. Consequently, there is no justification for levy of service tax on the consideration received by the appellant for carrying out the said processing. He brought to our notice that the identical issue for the same assesse for an earlier period stands decided by the Tribunal vide Final Ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er consideration is October, 2012 to March, 2014. W.e.f. 01.07.2012, the levy of Service Tax was changed to include all services other than the Negative List of Services specified in Section 66D of the Act. It is seen that the SCN as well as the impugned order has discussed, the leviability of Service tax only. With reference to the provisions, which were in existence prior to 01.07.2012. The adjudicating authority does not appear to have paid attention to the fact that the levy of Service Tax has been shifted to a negative list basis. 8. Even under the new provisions w.e.f. 01.07.2012 we find that the activity undertaken by the appellant is specified under the negative list in Section 66D (f). Consequently, there is no justification for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
