https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781805 CESTAT Kolkata allowed the appeal, holding that the appellant's job-work of fabricating structural steel from raw materials supplied by the main contractor for roads and flyovers did not attract the demanded excise duty. The Tribunal noted that the appellant acted as a sub-contractor under works contracts where the main contractor's activity was exempt from Service Tax, and Board Circular No.147/16/2011 extended similar exemption to sub-contractors. The appellant followed proper job-work procedures with challans and documentation, and there was no suppression of facts. The Dept had itself treated the activity differently over time, so invocation of the extended limitation period was unjustified and the demand was unsustainable. en-us Fri, 31 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 21 Nov 2025 08:42:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781805 CESTAT Kolkata allowed the appeal, holding that the appellant's job-work of fabricating structural steel from raw materials supplied by the main contractor for roads and flyovers did not attract the demanded excise duty. The Tribunal noted that the appellant acted as a sub-contractor under works contracts where the main contractor's activity was exempt from Service Tax, and Board Circular No.147/16/2011 extended similar exemption to sub-contractors. The appellant followed proper job-work procedures with challans and documentation, and there was no suppression of facts. The Dept had itself treated the activity differently over time, so invocation of the extended limitation period was unjustified and the demand was unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 31 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781805