2015 (12) TMI 1497 - AT - Service Tax

Galvanization Process: Manufacturing vs. Service

Advance Steel Tubes Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise And Service Tax, Ghaziabad

The Tribunal determined that the galvanization of hand pump parts by the appellant constituted a manufacturing process rather than a service falling under ... Demand of service tax - activity of galvanization of hand pump Parts - whether the activity undertaken by the appellants is a service falling under BAS, or a process of manufacture as contended by them - Held that:- while the processing or production of goods for, or on behalf of the client falls under the Category of BAS, the same does not cover any activity that amounts to manufacture of excisable goods in terms of clause (f) of Section 2 of Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellants do appear to have an arguable case. Further they have raised the issue if limitation. That the Department was always aware of the fact that they were carrying out job work and not paying service tax for such job work which reflected in ER-I returns. That they were reversing credit in respect of Zinc & Furnace oil in connection with job work and that the same-was would reveal that there was no suppression of facts or any intention to evade payment of duty. - Partial stay granted. Issues: Whether the activity of galvanization of hand pump parts amounts to a service falling under Business Auxiliary Service (BAS) or a process of manufacture.Analysis:1. The appellant challenged the demand of service tax on the galvanization of hand pump parts undertaken for their clients. The appellant is involved in manufacturing Black and G.I. Pipes & parts of transmission towers and also in the process of hot dip galvanization of hand pump parts. The Department contended that the activity falls within BAS, making the appellants liable to pay service tax. A show cause notice was issued, resulting in an order confirming the demand of service tax, interest, and penalties. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the liability but directed a recalculation of the demand. The present appeal and stay application were filed against this decision.2. The main issue was whether the galvanization activity constituted a service under BAS or a process of manufacture. The appellant argued that galvanization amounts to manufacture based on relevant Chapter Notes. On the other hand, the Department referred to the definition of BAS under the Finance Act, stating that production or processing of goods for a client falls under BAS. The Tribunal noted that while processing for a client falls under BAS, it does not cover activities amounting to the manufacture of excisable goods. The appellant raised concerns about the limitation period, asserting that there was no intention to evade payment as evident from their job work details in ER-I returns.3. The Tribunal found that the appellants presented a prima facie case, but considering the facts and contentions, they did not grant a full waiver of pre-deposit. The appellants were directed to deposit a specified amount within a set timeframe to comply with the relevant legal provisions. Failure to comply would result in the dismissal of the appeal. The decision was made to ensure sufficient compliance under the Central Excise Act and the Finance Act.In conclusion, the Tribunal analyzed the nature of the galvanization activity in the context of BAS and manufacturing processes, considered the arguments presented by both parties, and made a decision regarding the pre-deposit requirement for the appeal to proceed.