Tribunal rules welding and fabrication for ship manufacture not subject to service tax

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision that the respondent's activities, including welding and fabrication for ship manufacture, constitute excisable goods manufacturing under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. As a result, the activities are excluded from Business Auxiliary Service (BAS) and are not subject to service tax. The Tribunal affirmed that Notification No. 8/2005-ST does not apply to these manufacturing activities. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, confirming that the respondent's activities are not under BAS, regardless of M/s L&T's role as the manufacturer.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the activities performed by the respondent amount to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. Whether the activities fall under the definition of Business Auxiliary Service (BAS) and are liable for service tax.
3. Applicability of Notification No. 8/2005-ST.

Summary:

1. Manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944:
The learned Commissioner (Appeals) concluded that the activities such as welding, fabrication, cutting, and binding carried out by the respondent for the manufacture of ships on behalf of M/s L&T Ltd. amount to manufacture of excisable goods under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Commissioner noted that these processes are incidental or ancillary to the completion of the manufactured product and thus fit within the definition of 'manufacture'. The decision was supported by the Supreme Court's ruling in M/s. Grasim Industries Ltd. vs. UOI and other relevant case laws.

2. Definition of Business Auxiliary Service (BAS) and Service Tax Liability:
The Commissioner (Appeals) held that since the activities amount to manufacture, they are excluded from the definition of BAS, which means they are not liable for service tax under this category. The definition of BAS explicitly excludes any activity that amounts to the manufacture of excisable goods. The Tribunal upheld this view, stating that the activity is specific and not person-specific. Therefore, even if M/s L&T is considered the manufacturer, the respondent's activities still qualify as manufacturing and do not fall under BAS.

3. Applicability of Notification No. 8/2005-ST:
The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that Notification No. 8/2005-ST does not apply because the activities performed by the respondent amount to manufacture. The notification's explanation (i) states that it applies only when the production does not amount to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal agreed with this interpretation, noting that the activities are manufacturing and thus the notification is not applicable.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal found the Commissioner's order to be legally sound and upheld it, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. It was concluded that the activities carried out by the respondent are manufacturing activities under Section 2(f) and are excluded from BAS, thereby not attracting service tax. The Tribunal also clarified that the exclusion in BAS is activity-specific, not person-specific, reinforcing that the respondent's activities do not fall under BAS even if M/s L&T is the manufacturer.

Order:
The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, and the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was upheld. The judgment was pronounced in the open court on 13.09.2023.

---