Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to exemption under Notification No. 8/2005-S.T. for sterilization of packed goods received from clients on job-work basis, and whether the demand of service tax was sustainable.
Analysis: The taxable entry covered production or processing of goods on behalf of a client under Business Auxiliary Service, but the exemption notification applied where goods were produced using raw materials or semi-finished goods supplied by the client and returned for use in or in relation to manufacture of other goods. Packed goods received for sterilization were treated as semi-finished goods, so the notification was not confined only to raw materials. The notification also explained that production of goods meant working upon raw materials or semi-finished goods to complete part or whole of production, subject to the process not amounting to manufacture. On that construction, further manufacture by the client was not a necessary condition. The Board clarification addressed taxability of the service, not eligibility to the exemption, and therefore did not assist the Revenue.
Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 8/2005-S.T. and the demand was not sustainable.