9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 348X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssion letters granted by the Authorized Officer for outsourcing the job work by the SEZ units to the Appellant herein. The said letters are clear in as much as, they indicate the purpose and also identify the entities to whom the job work was outsourced. On perusal of Notification No.8/2005 makes it clear that the goods received on job work should be used in the manufacture of goods on which appropriate duty is payable. The appellant has claimed that it had performed the job work as instructed by the SEZ units; the SEZ units did not dispute the job work executed by the Appellant for which both the parties did not dispute the payment / consideration and it is nowhere even disputed by the authorities below that the principals / SEZ units had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocuments placed on record and also judicial pronouncements relied upon during the course of arguments before us. We find that the only issue to be decided by is, Whether the demand of service tax is justifiable ? 3. In the Order--in--Original No 63/2012 dated 16.10.2012 the Adjudicating Authority holds the view that the activity undertaken by the Appellant, of powder coating of metals and articles of metals did not amount to manufacture in terms of Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944. He has accordingly held that the above activity was rightly classifiable under Business Auxiliary Service (BAS); service tax exemption claimed under Notification No.8/2005--ST dt. 01.03.2005 was accordingly denied since, according to the Adjudicating Auth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judicating Authority has examined the above claim of the Appellant in the context of Notification No.4/2004--ST dt. 31.3.2004 and thereby denied the benefit of the said Notification No.4/2004. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has gone a step ahead to the extent of even disbelieving the physical delivery of goods to the place of SEZ units. That may be a doubt which is clearly out of context since, when the appellant had claimed to have delivered and the principals / SEZ units having not disputed the receipt of the same and that there has also been flow of consideration that too in cheque, that itself shows that the delivery is complete. But in any case, this aspect having been accepted by the Adjudicating Authority without a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
