TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (6) TMI 881
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....B.K. Singh, Jt. CDR, for the Respondent. ORDER Heard learned consultant for the applicants and learned Jt.CDR for the respondent. 2. The authorities below under the impugned order has demanded Service Tax to the tune of Rs. 27,64,285/- in one matter and to the tune of Rs. 64,74,477/- in another matter. Equal amount of penalty has also been imposed. The applicants are also held liable to pay int....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oceedings and demand of Service Tax in relation to the activity of the applicants. 4. The lower authority, in the matter in hand, on consideration of the nature of activity carried out by the applicants, has held that, undisputedly, the goods are produced by the applicants and as per the agreement of the applicants with their clients, same were sold to them. The applicants are not entitled to sel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....' as described above then such activity would not fall under the taxable service, namely the BAS. However, in case the activity undertaken by the CBU falls short of the definition of manufacture (such as activity of 'packing' or 'labelling' alone) then such activity would fall within its ambit and would be charged to service tax." In the matter in hand, it is not in dispute that the applicants do....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onsultant has not been able to point out the activity of the applicants to be in consonance with the description of the activity in para 3 of the Circular so as to claim exemption from being classified as 'Business Auxiliary Service' within the meaning of the said expression under the said Act. Prima facie, therefore, we do not find any case having been made out for grant of stay of the impugned o....