9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 514X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... immoveable property, as referred in the Commissioner s order in para 2 under facts of the case without the same being alleged in the show-cause notice, cannot be accepted as an issue covered under excise provisions as the entire activities were covered under the said Notification No. 214/86-CE issued under Central Excise Act, as apparently he was hinting at the definition of Sales Tax and not at the Central Excise Act. Moreover, under serial No. 30 of Notification No. 25/2012-S.T., certain definite activities are defined to have been covered under the job work and exempted from the purview of Service Tax but those relates to processes on selected intermediate production and not production of any kind of goods or goods in general. In the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een allowed to avail the benefit of Central Excise Notification No. 214/86-CE, its activity can only be considered as an activity covered under Central Excise Act and not rendering of a service, so as to invoke the provision contained in Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Appeal allowed. - DR. SUVENDU KUMAR PATI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri J.N. Somaiya, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Xavier P.M. Mascarenhas, Superintendent, Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER Denial of CENVAT Credit to the Appellant by the Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals-I), Pune on the ground that Appellant had not followed the procedure contained in Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and not reversed proportionat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... approached the Commissioner (Appeals) after the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand, interest and penalty but the same yielded no fruitful result, for which this appeal is preferred by the Appellant before this Tribunal. 3. During course of hearing of the appeal, Learned Counsel for the Appellant Mr. J.N. Somaiya submitted that issue involved in this appeal is fully settled in favour of the Appellant-Assessee in the case of Shree Organo Chemicals Ahmedabad P. Ltd. Vs. CCE reported in 2019 (2) TMI-852, CCE Vs. DM Brass Extrusion Ors. Reported in 2018 (6) TMI 1420, Industrial Heat Treaters Ors. Vs. CCE reported in 2017 (12) TMI 1210, Western India Forging Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE reported in 2014 (36) STR 637, JBF Industries Vs. CCE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rted in 2018 (10) TMI 827 regarding non-production of evidence on use of common services and its resultant effect. Plea of non-applicability of extended period is also raised by him. 4. To contradict the submissions made by the Appellant learned Authorised Representative Mr. Xavier P.M. Mascarenhas, in placing reliance on Notification No. 25/2012-ST issued on dated 20.06.2012, has drawn our attention to Sr. No. 30 of the said notification that exempts intermediate products and process carried out by job workers from the purview of the Service Tax and argued that job work activity does not amount to manufacture, for which the same is to be treated as exempted service so as to invoked Rule, 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. He further ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich the activity of Appellant, since did not involve sale or transfer of title in any goods or moveable or immoveable property, as referred in the Commissioner s order in para 2 under facts of the case without the same being alleged in the show-cause notice, cannot be accepted as an issue covered under excise provisions as the entire activities were covered under the said Notification No. 214/86-CE issued under Central Excise Act, as apparently he was hinting at the definition of Sales Tax and not at the Central Excise Act. Moreover, under serial No. 30 of Notification No. 25/2012-S.T., certain definite activities are defined to have been covered under the job work and exempted from the purview of Service Tax but those relates to processes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only when intermediate production process at the job worker s level is carried out, which could be activities like those stated above and also process of electroplating, zinc plating, anodizing, heat treatment, powder coating, painting, etc. in the course of manufacture of parts of cycles or sewing machines up to a certain turnover. To say it differently other works like doing agriculture or manufacturing textile since are different from processing of products of agriculture or textile processing, machining of shaft or rollers could also be different from manufacturing of shaft or rollers but when for decades, Appellant has been allowed to avail the benefit of Central Excise Notification No. 214/86-CE, its activity can only be considered a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
