TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (8) TMI 492
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nzene and Epicholorohydrin and they had an effluent treatment plant for processing waste effluents, generated during manufacturing process, before discharging such effluents into sea. 3. Sometime during late 1990s, the appellant set up a joint venture company by name Petro Araldite Private Ltd. (PAPL, for short) with foreign collaboration. PAPL set up its factory adjacent to the factory of the applicant. The new factory was to use Epichlorohydrin manufactured by the applicant as raw material for manufacture of Epoxy Resin. During the manufacture of Epoxy Resin also, some effluents that can cause environmental damage arise. Therefore, the applicant and PAPL entered into an agreement dt. 02-05-99 to expand the then existing capacity of efflu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rough the legislative history of relevant entry under section 65 (19) of the Finance Act, 1994 defining Business Auxiliary Service at various points of time till 16.6.05. His argument is that this entry was intended to impose service tax on value addition by job-workers for which excise duty was not getting paid for the reason that the process in question done by the job worker was not amounting to manufacture. His argument is that in this case there is no relationship of principal manufacturer and job-worker between PAPL and the applicant. Further, he also argues that there is no value addition in treating effluent. They are only complying with the laws of the country while treating effluents before its discharge to sea, to ensure that it ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....visions in the Act or from any other external sources. He argues that external source like history of the legislation can be relevant only when there is doubt regarding the meaning of an existing provision of any Act. In this case, the meaning comes out very clearly from the expression used and there is no scope for looking into the history of legislation. 9. Ld. AR submits that the effluent treatment plant was an asset of the applicant which was reflected in their balance sheet. It is run by the applicant on day-to-day basis. At periodical intervals, they recovered a part of the cost from PAPL which corresponded to the charges for treating effluents from PAPL. According to him, there is no joint venture in this arrangement for sharing eit....