Manufacturing Activities /= Business Auxiliary Services: Tribunal Ruling

The Tribunal held that the activities of bending, cutting, drilling, and punching on goods supplied constituted "manufacture" rather than "Business Auxiliary Services." Citing the Supreme Court's precedent, the Tribunal concluded that transforming steel plates into identifiable products qualified as manufacturing. Consequently, the demand for service tax under "Business Auxiliary Services" was deemed unsustainable, and the appellants' appeals were allowed with consequential reliefs.

---

---

Issues:
Whether the activity of bending, cutting, drilling, shearing, and punching on goods supplied constitutes "manufacture" or "Business Auxiliary Services".

Analysis:
The case involved the appellants engaged in job work activities such as bending, cutting, drilling, and punching on goods supplied by customer industries. The department contended that these activities did not amount to manufacture but fell under "Business Auxiliary Services," leading to the issuance of a Show Cause Notice for non-payment of service tax, interest, and penalties. The original authority upheld the demand and penalties, prompting the appellants to appeal before the Tribunal.

The appellant's counsel argued that the activities constituted manufacturing as they involved transforming steel plates into identifiable products like Alignment band, Roof Seal Band, Pad Plates, and Manhole Frames, which are components of Boilers. Reference was made to declarations filed by customers under Notification No. 214/86. The counsel cited the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Orissa Bridge & Construction Corpn. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of C.Ex., Bhubaneswar, which determined that similar activities amounted to manufacture, thus challenging the service tax demand under "Business Auxiliary Services."

On the other hand, the respondent's representative reiterated the findings of the impugned order during the proceedings. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal considered the nature of the job work done by the appellants, which involved bending, cutting, shearing, and punching of goods supplied to customers like BHEL and Veesons Energy Systems. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in the Orissa Bridge & Construction Corpn. Ltd. case, which established that fabricating products from steel angles, MS Plates, and MS Sheets constituted manufacturing. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that since the appellants' activities amounted to manufacture, the demand under "Business Auxiliary Services" was unsustainable. As a result, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were allowed with any consequential reliefs.

---