9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 810X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri Rahul Tangri , Advocate for the Appellant Shri J.Chattopadhyay , Authorised Representative for the Revenue ORDER Per Ashok Jindal : All the appeals are having a common issue. Therefore, all are disposed off by a common order. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant being a Public Sector Undertaking, entered into a long term contract with various customers, namely, Durgapur Steel Plant, Alloy Steel Plant, Bhilai Steel Plant and Bokaro Steel Plant of Steel Authority of India Limited as well as Indian Iron Steel Company Limited, for recovering, handling, transporting and processing of slag scrap mixture generated at the customers steel plant as result of manufacturing processes at various stages like, blast furnace, SMS, raw material handling plant etc. 2.1 The processing of slag scrap mixture was undertaken for the purposes of obtaining iron and steel scrap from the said mixture by way of screening , magnetic separation etc.. Such activities do not amount to manufacture. 2.2 The said iron and scrap so obtained was to be handed over to the customers for further use in the manufacture of dutiable goods. 2.3 The obligations being di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - processing of goods. As such it is clear that prior to the amendment and in the absence of the words processing the same has to be interpreted in a manner that the activity results in production of goods. We may here observe that every production may not amount to manufacture but admittedly every manufacturing activity involves production of goods, inasmuch as the term manufacture would include production though every production may not include the manufacturing activity. Inasmuch as the Commissioner in his order dated 21-9-2006 has held that the said activity does not amount to manufacture and such order stands accepted by the Revenue, it has to be held that there was no production of goods. As such we agree with the ld. Advocate that the first criteria of the definition is not satisfied. 9. As regards second criteria that the said activity has to be on behalf of the client , we find that the matter is no longer res integra and stand settled by various decisions of the Tribunal. Even the Board s Circular has clarified the same. For ready reference we may reproduce the relevant portion : Circular No. 137/111/2007-CX, dated 15-7-2007 03. The matter has b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... similar to the one as existed in the case of Auto Coats. Therefore, in the light of above two decisions discussed above, it cannot be said that appellants have undertaken job work on behalf of the clients, in view of the fact that there were only two parties to the transaction in this case, whereas where the production is on behalf of the clients, there would be three parties. Since, services undertaken by the appellants is not covered by the definition, no service tax is attracted. Accordingly, impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed . Further, in the case of Rathour Engg. Works - 2012 (27) S.T.R. 37 (Tri.-Del.), the Tribunal held as under :- 6. The appellants carry out the process of grinding and smoothening the edges, called fettling of the rough castings, received from principal manufacturers who clear the goods after carrying out further processes. Since there is no dispute that this activity of the appellants does not amount to manufacture, it can only be called processing not amounting to manufacture, which was not taxable during the period of dispute. We also agree with the appellant s plea that as held by the Tribunal in cases of M/s. Auto Coats. v. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o 16-6-2005, we note that for the later period, the definition has included processing of goods in addition to production of goods. The claim of the appellant is that the liability of service tax would stand extinguished through the Notification No. 8/2005-S.T., dated 1-3- 2005. The lower appellate authority has denied the benefit of the said exemption to the appellant. For ready reference, we reproduce below the Notification No. 8/2005-S.T. ibid : In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 93 of the Finance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994) (hereinafter referred to as the Finance Act), the Central Government, on being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts the taxable service of [production or processing of goods for, or on behalf of, the client] referred in sub-clause (v) of clause (19) of Section 65 of the said Finance Act, from the whole of service tax leviable thereon under Section 66 of the said Finance Act : Provided that the said exemption shall apply only in cases where such goods are produced [or processed] using raw materials or semi-finished goods supplied by the client and goods so produced [or processed] ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
