Revenue fails to prove exemption availment in PET bottle processing service tax case under Notification 8/2005-ST

CESTAT Allahabad dismissed revenue's appeal challenging exemption from service tax on flaking/grinding of used PET bottles and washing of flakes. Revenue argued the process constituted manufacture subject to nil duty rate under Notification 24/2012-CE, making exemption under Notification 8/2005-ST inapplicable. However, revenue failed to produce evidence that the respondent cleared finished polyester staple fiber/yarn by availing exemption benefits. Without proof of exemption availment, revenue's contention regarding non-admissibility of service tax exemption could not be substantiated, resulting in appeal dismissal.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the process of flaking/grinding of used PET bottles amounts to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act.
2. Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 8/2005-ST dated 01.03.2005.
3. Applicability of Service Tax under Business Auxiliary Services.
4. Validity of the demand for Service Tax, penalties, and interest.

Summary of Judgment:

1. Process of Flaking/Grinding as Manufacture:

The Commissioner concluded that the process of converting waste PET bottles into PET flakes does not amount to manufacture as it does not result in a new distinct and identifiable product. Consequently, the respondent is entitled to the benefit of exemption from Service Tax under Notification No. 8/2005-ST dated 01.03.2005, and the demand of Rs 52,46,844.00 is liable to be dropped as non-sustainable in law.

2. Eligibility for Exemption under Notification No. 8/2005-ST:

The Revenue argued that the exemption under Notification No. 8/2005-ST is not applicable as the final product, Polyester staple fiber, was subject to a nil rate of duty as per Notification No. 24/2012-CE dated 08.05.2012. However, the Tribunal found no evidence from the Revenue to show that Reliance Industries Ltd. cleared the finished products by availing the benefit of the notification. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision to extend the benefit of the exemption to the respondent.

3. Applicability of Service Tax under Business Auxiliary Services:

The Commissioner held that if the process does not amount to manufacture, the respondent's activities fall under Business Auxiliary Services but are exempt under Notification No. 8/2005-ST. The Revenue's appeal only contested the exemption post 08.05.2012, but the Tribunal found that the exemption was valid throughout the period in question, including after the issuance of Notification No. 24/2012-CE.

4. Validity of the Demand for Service Tax, Penalties, and Interest:

The Tribunal noted that the Revenue did not provide evidence showing that Reliance Industries Ltd. cleared the final products under the exemption. The Tribunal also referenced previous decisions and circulars supporting the exemption of Polyester staple fiber from duty. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, finding no merit in the demand for Service Tax, penalties, and interest.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, concluding that the respondent's process does not amount to manufacture and is eligible for exemption under Notification No. 8/2005-ST. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed due to a lack of evidence supporting their claims.

---