TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Classification of Service under Business Auxiliary Service Prevails over Re-conditioning Argument</h1> <h3>M/s ZENITH ROLLERS LTD Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE</h3> M/s ZENITH ROLLERS LTD Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE - 2014 (33) S.T.R. 678 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:Classification of service under Business Auxiliary Service or Management, Maintenance or Repair Service.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Classification of service under Business Auxiliary Service or Management, Maintenance or Repair ServiceFacts: The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Original by M/s Zenith Rollers Ltd. for not discharging service tax liability on re-rubberisation of rollers. The Department claimed it fell under Management, Maintenance, or Repair Service, not Business Auxiliary Service.Appellant's Argument: The appellants argued that re-rubberisation falls under Business Auxiliary Service as it involves processing goods for clients. They paid service tax under this category and claimed exemption under Notification No. 14/2005 for specific industries.Revenue's Argument: The revenue contended that re-rubberisation amounts to re-conditioning, falling under Management, Maintenance, or Repair Service. They cited the Tribunal's decision on similar cases and denied the benefit of Notification 12/2003 due to lack of evidence of sales tax payment.Court's Finding: The court noted the activities involved in re-rubberisation and found them to be processes on goods received from clients, falling under Business Auxiliary Service. However, the Revenue argued that re-rubberisation amounted to re-conditioning, which aligns with Management, Maintenance, or Repair Service.Legal Analysis: The court applied Section 65A, which states that when a service is classifiable under multiple categories, the most specific description should be preferred. Since the service could not be classified under specific clauses, it was classified under the sub-clause that comes first. Business Auxiliary Service was classified under Section 65(105)(zzb), which precedes Management, Maintenance, or Repair Service under Section 65(105)(zzr).Conclusion: The court held that the service provided by the appellants was classifiable under Business Auxiliary Service, setting aside the Order-in-Original and allowing the appeal.This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the legal judgment, including the arguments presented by both parties and the court's reasoning leading to the final decision.
TaxTMI 