TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (1) TMI 1049
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ctivities in the steel plants of their clients. 3. The appellant is first required to collect scrap mixed with slag from different places in the plant like BF Slag pit, Cast House, Ladle Repair Shop, Pig Cast Machine area. From the slag pit, the appellant collects mixture of slag and scrap by digging hot slag with the help of excavator. At pig cast machine area, hot metal is poured at pig casting machine and in this process some part of hot metal spills over and fall on ground. The appellant collects this spilled over scrap and takes it to scrap processing yard. Apart from collecting scrap from abovesaid areas, the appellant also undertakes cleaning activities in these areas so that the transportation of slag and scrap is not hindered. 2. Such collected scrap mixed with either slag or impurities are further processed by the appellant employing different processes like balling, lancing, chisel cutting etc. 3. In the process of balling, the appellant with the help of magnet crane lifts an iron ball weighing 8-10 tons up to a height of 20 feet and drops it on the scrap mixed with slag. Through this process, scrap is separated from sl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rior to the present proceedings, the Revenue initiated proceedings against the appellant alleging that they are engaged in the manufacture of the goods, which are liable to duty of excise. The said show cause notice stands decided by the Commissioner of Central Excise vide his order No. Commissioner/ RPR/77/2006 dated 21.09.2006. It stands held by the adjudicating authority that the activity of the appellant does not result in the manufacture of another final product inasmuch as the same involves separation of iron material from the molten slag. The said order of the Commissioner stands accepted by the Revenue and no appeal has been filed. By relying upon the same, he submits that inasmuch as the Revenue itself has held that the activity undertaken by the appellant does not amount to manufacture, the Revenue in the present case cannot allege that the same amounts to production of goods. Admittedly, manufacture includes production, though production may not include manufacture. Once the Revenue has itself accepted the fact that there was no manufacture meaning thereby that there was no production, the first criteria of the definition of the BAS does not get satisfied. Assailing on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt. As such she submits that the process undertaken by the appellant may not amount to manufacture of excisable goods but the same admittedly amounts to production of goods. As such she submits that the detailed process, as taken note of by the Commissioner in his order, clearly reveals that the appellant is engaged in the production of the goods, thus satisfying the first part of the definition. As regards the second part of the definition i.e. -on 'behalf of the client', she submits that during the relevant period the expression -'for' was not introduced in the said definition and as such the expression -'on behalf of the client' has to be interpreted in a manner which gives wider scope to the same and includes both the situations i.e. for the client and on behalf of the client. Merely because the expression 'for' was introduced w.e.f. June 2005, does not mean that the earlier definition has to be given restricted meaning. As regards the appellant's reliance on the order of the Commissioner dated 21.09.2006 holding that the activity does not amount to manufacture, she submits that in fact the said adjudication order supports the Revenue case. The activity may not amount to manu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the client, we find that the matter is no longer res-integra and stand settled by various decisions of the Tribunal. Even the Boards circular has clarified the same. For ready reference we may reproduce the relevant portion: Circular No. 137/111/2007-CX dated 15.07.2007 03. The matter has been examined by the Board. The view of the Board is that the incineration/ shredding of bio-medical where can, by no stretch of imagination, be called as 'processing of goods', even if in certain cases the shredded materials may be used as filters etc. Further, the activity also does not qualify to be called as provision of service on behalf of the client. This is because the taxable activity envisaged under this category of 'business auxiliary service' is that while the 'client' is obliged to provide some service to a 3rd person but instead of the client providing such service, the service provider provides the such service to the 3rd person, on behalf of the client i.e. acting as an agent of the client. Admittedly, in the instant case, there is no 3rd person. Thus, the activity as undertaken does not fall under business auxiliary service or an....