Tribunal rules yamming not manufacturing, no Service Tax. Revenue arguments inconsistent. Commissioner instructions awaited.

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, determining that the yamming process did not amount to manufacture and was not liable for Service Tax as a Business Auxiliary service. The Tribunal found the revenue's arguments inconsistent and dispensed with the pre-deposit condition and penalty. Further instructions from the Commissioner were awaited for final disposal of the appeal.

---

---

Issues:
1. Whether the activity of yamming process undertaken by the appellant amounts to manufactureRs.
2. Whether the said activity is covered under the category of Business Auxiliary service liable to Service TaxRs.
3. Whether the condition of pre-deposit of Service Tax should be dispensed withRs.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appellant was engaged in the yamming process, affixing the color yoke with the picture tube and adjusting them electronically. The original authority concluded that this activity amounts to manufacture based on the decision of a Larger Bench. However, the revenue appealed against this decision, arguing that yamming does not result in a new product emerging. The Commissioner (Appeals) also held that the process does not amount to manufacture, referencing other judgments. The Tribunal noted the revenue's inconsistent stand over the years and ultimately dispensed with the pre-deposit condition, finding the Commissioner (Appeals) order not sustainable.

Issue 2:
The revenue contended that the yamming process falls under Business Auxiliary service liable to Service Tax. However, the Tribunal's analysis primarily focused on whether the activity amounted to manufacture. The revenue's argument regarding the nature of the process did not hold, as the Tribunal found inconsistencies in the revenue's stance and ultimately decided in favor of the appellant.

Issue 3:
The appellant sought the dispensation of the pre-deposit condition for the Service Tax amount. The Tribunal, after thorough analysis and finding the revenue's arguments lacking consistency and merit, decided to dispense with the pre-deposit condition and penalty. The Tribunal also noted the need for further instructions from the Commissioner before final disposal of the appeal, granting time for the same.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment in this case revolved around the determination of whether the yamming process undertaken by the appellant constituted manufacture and whether it fell under the purview of Business Auxiliary service for Service Tax liability. The Tribunal found the revenue's arguments lacking consistency and ultimately decided in favor of the appellant, dispensing with the pre-deposit condition and penalty while awaiting further instructions for final disposal.

---