TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (8) TMI 531
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ance Act, 1994. Shri Manish R. Patel Service tax of Rs. 17,870/- and penalties under various sections of Finance Act, 1994. M/s. Panchal Fabricators Service tax of Rs. 34,893/- and penalties under various sections of Finance Act, 1994. M/s. Mahesh Iron Works Service tax of Rs. 12,001/- and penalties under various sections of Finance Act, 1994. M/s. Ramdev Engg Works Service tax of Rs. 6,136/- and penalties under various sections of Finance Act, 1994. Shri Pratap U. Mahida Service tax of Rs. 5,268/- and penalties under various sections of Finance Act, 1994. Shri Samir Desai Service tax of Rs. 14,007/- and penalties under various sections of Finance Act, 1994. M/s. Bhagwati Fabricators Service tax of Rs. 13,743/- and penalties under various sections of Finance Act, 1994. M/s. Shakti Engineering Works Service tax of Rs. 154/- and penalties under various sections of Finance Act, 1994. M/s. Saibaba Engineering Service tax of Rs. 542/- and penalties under various sections of Finance Act, 1994. M/s. Arihant Engineers Service tax of Rs. 13,481/- and penalties under various sections of Finance Act, 1994. M/s. Manjeet Industries ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the client. because the said definition was enacted only with effect from 16.6.2005. It is his submission that prior to this definition, the definition read as production of goods on behalf of the clients . It is his submission that there is no dispute that the appellants herein were producing the goods for M/s. Swiss Glasscoat Equipments Limited and the fabrication work undertaken by the appellants would amount to manufacture of products such as shells, couplings, flanges etc. He would submit that the decision of this Bench in the case of Sonic Watches Limited vs. CCE Vadodara 2011 (21) STR 34 (Tri. Ahmd.) would directly apply in this case. 6. Learned departmental representative reiterates the findings of the lower authorities. 7. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides, we find that the issue involved in this case is whether the definition of the Business Auxiliary Services, as it stood during the material period could be made applicable for the purpose of levy of service tax on the activities undertaken by the appellants herein. It is undisputed that the appellants are working as job workers and are manufacturing goods as has been indi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the appellants was visited by the officers of Central Excise on 29-10-2004, who conducted enquiries with regard to job work and their liability towards service tax. Thereafter, show cause notice was issued and impugned order has been passed confirming service tax demand of Rs. 29,56,340/- and imposition of penalty of Rs. 25,42,941/- under Section 78 of the Act and penalties under Sections 76 and 77 of the Act. 2. Learned advocate on behalf of the appellants submitted that the process undertaken by them cannot be considered amounting to production at all. While he is not disputing that the process does not amount to manufacture, it is his contention that the process undertaken by them falls short of production . He also submitted alternative contention that the definition of term Manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, includes any process ancillary and incidental to the completion of manufacture and therefore process undertaken can be said to amount to manufacture. Further, he also submitted that the Commissioner has introduced a totally new hybrid category between processing and manufacture and has held that process amounts to production. He also submitted tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat is M/s. H.C.C. and M/s. L & T, the said contractors shall produce certificate from FBE Coating agencies that the quality of powder epoxy material and other components of FBE conform to relevant I.S. Standard. Such certificates shall accompany each lot of coated bars leaving the plant for work site. The contractor may also carry out such tests at plant jointly or separately of coating agency to confirm use of proper quality of coating material. The coated reinforced bars shall be tested at plant site by the contractor, test results shall be jointly signed by authorized representative of contractor and the coating agency. As such, even if the appellant s plea that the expression on behalf of their clients involves third party agreement is accepted, the same is satisfied in the present case. Admittedly, the contractors have to use powder epoxy coated bars in the construction of roads, bridges etc. Instead of doing the coating themselves the same is being done by the appellants on their behalf. As such, it can be safely concluded that the said service stands rendered by the appellants on behalf of L & T, H.C.C, H.P.P. etc. to the State Road Development Corporation Ltd. to whom the ....