9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 229X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5-ST to the job work activity of the appellant for the period prior to 01.07.2012. In the present case the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has extended the benefit of Notification 25/2012-ST for the period after 01.07.2012. However, for the previous period Notification 08/2005-ST was denied. Since, the issue relates to Notification 08/2005-ST has been considered in the aforesaid decision by this Tribunal, The issue is no longer res-integra. Hence, following the decision, the appellant is not liable to pay service Tax on the job work activity carried out by them. Therefore, the demand for the period prior to 01.07.2012 is also not sustainable. Appeal allowed. - MR. RAMESH NAIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. RAJU, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iation/process and returns the material with proper documents. Such returned goods are further cleared by the Principals on proper duty payment, for which there is no dispute. That no Service Tax is paid in respect of such job worked goods on which proper duty is eventually paid by the Principals. The case of the department is that such job work could attract Service Tax therefore, the impugned order seeks to demand tax on such transactions. 2. Shri Saurabh Dixit, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant at the outset submits that in the appellant s own case this Tribunal has considered the very same issue and held that the activity in the hands of the appellant is eligible for exemption Notification No.08/2005-ST. therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, the appellant has rightly availed exemption under Notification 8/2005. He submits that on both the counts the Revenue has seriously erred in interpreting the notification. In the present case the appellant have received some physician goods for processing which is permissible under notification and subsequently there is no need for further use of the goods after processing by the job-work, in the further manufacture by the client. Therefore, both the reasons cited by the lower authorities for denial of exemption are not relevant and consequently the order passed on that basis is illegal and incorrect. 3. Shri G. Kirupanandan, learned Assistant Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded that the said exemption shall apply only in cases where such goods are produced using raw materials or semi-finished goods supplied by the client and goods so produced are returned back to the said client for use in or in relation to manufacture of any other goods falling under the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986), as amended by the Central Excise Tariff (Amendment) Act, 2004 (5 of 2005), on which appropriate duty of excise is payable. Explanation. - For the purposes of this notification, - (i) the expression production of goods means working upon raw materials or semifinished goods so as to complete part or whole of production, subject to the condition that such production does not amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss is done which is required to complete the product, no further manufacturing is required. Therefore, the contention of the department that job worked good should be necessarily be used by the principal client for further manufacturing is contrary to the explanation-(i) of the notification. Therefore, on this count also the benefit of notification cannot be denied to the appellant. 6. As regards the reliance made by learned AR on Para 24 of the Board clarification issued vide No. B1/6/2015-TRU letter dated 27.07.2005, we reproduce the same:- 24.2 A point was raised whether 'production of goods on behalf of the client' covers situations where the service provider undertakes job work for the client. In view of the amendm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
