9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 1441X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essing/blending of the bulk powder with sweetened milk powder, sugar, vitamins etc. to make it marketable in the finished form and then packing of the final manufactured product either in pouches or in jars having brand name of 'Horlicks' on it. The said activity undertaken by the appellant do qualify as process of manufacturing in terms of section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as the activity undertaken by the appellant brings about a change in the name, character and use and bringing a new product in the market which is known as 'Horlicks', therefore, the activity undertaken by the appellant is manufacturing activity and the appellant is a manufacturer in terms of section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Thus, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The revenue is of the view that the activity of processing undertaken by the appellant does not amount to manufacture, therefore, various show cause notices were issued by the revenue for the period in question to demand service tax on conversion charges received by the appellant from GSK. The show cause notices were adjudicated and the demand of service tax was confirmed against the appellant for the period upto to June 2012 under 'Business Support Service' and for post 2012 the appellant has provided the service as job-worker of GSK. Aggrieved from the said orders, the appellant is before us. 4. The Ld.Counsel for the appellants submits that the Commissioner of Central Excise, Guwahati vide its Order dated 28.10.2011 has already ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the product marketable, amounts to manufacture . It is his submission that the activity undertaken by the appellant brings about a change in name, character as well as use of the ingredients and leads to emergence a new product, which is recognized in the market as 'Horlicks', which is used in preparation of milk beverages. Therefore, he submitted that it is also settled principle of law that job-workers are eligible to avail exemption under Area Based Exemption Notification by way of refund since the activity undertaken by such job-workers amount to manufacture. To support this, the appellant relies on the decision in the case of Vasantham Enterprises v. CCE, Chandigarh [2015 (37) STR 1007 (Tri.-Del.)], wherein in respect of job- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ability. 8. He also submitted that the appellant is recognized manufacturer by various statutory bodies namely the appellant is registered with Central Excise Department, Sales Tax VAT Registration, Separate factory registration, License under Food Safety Act, Separate Pollution Control Board Registration. Therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant is not an independent manufacturer. 9. He also relied on the CBEC Circular No. 908/28/2009-CX : dated 23.12.2009, which provides that even the job-workers who are only engaged in peripheral activities of packing, labeling etc. are also eligible area-based exemption provided the main product is being manufactured in the specific areas eligible for exemption. Therefore, the impugned orders are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Excise Act, 1944 defines manufacture inter-alia to include any process which, in relation to the goods specified in the Third Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, involves packing or repacking of such goods in a unit container or labelling or re-labelling of containers including the declaration or alteration of retail sale price on it or adoption of any other treatment on the goods to render the product marketable to the consumer. Besides, Chapter Note 5 of Chapter 19 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 provides that in relation to products of this Chapter, labelling or re- labelling of containers or repacking from bulk packs to retail packs or the adoption of any other treatment to render the product marketable to the consum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing in terms of section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as the activity undertaken by the appellant brings about a change in the name, character and use and bringing a new product in the market which is known as 'Horlicks', therefore, we hold that the activity undertaken by the appellant is manufacturing activity and the appellant is a manufacturer in terms of section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 16. In that circumstances, it cannot be said that the appellant is a job-worker and providing 'Business Support Service' and no demand of service tax can be raised against the appellant. 17. Therefore, the impugned order qua demand of service tax from the appellant that they are service provider post June 2012 and prio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
