2017 (2) TMI 893

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....The period in dispute in the instant appeals is from August, 2009 to March, 2010. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee-Appellants are engaged in the packing and labelling business. The assessee-Appellants packed 10 Nos. of 35 ml Clinic Plus Shampoo bottles in a Pet Jar and shrink-sleeving the jar and affixing the label containing the product details on the lid of the jar. The Department considered it as a manufacturing activity in terms of Section 2(f)(iii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 by observing that, the Shampoo bottles bear the MRP and are marketable to the consumers. However, in the impugned order the Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that the activity carried out by the assessee-Appellants is a manufacturing a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... no longer claim to be mere service provider as per the ratio laid down in the case of Vasantham Enterprises vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh, 2015 (37) STR 1007 (Tri-Del). In this case, it was also observed that an incomplete declaration does not totally debar from eligibility to exemption after curing defects in said declaration, otherwise it would defeat the object of exemption. There is nothing on record to show any suppression of facts or intention to evade the duty by the assessee-appellants. Further, the Hon'ble supreme Court in the case of Sambhaji vs Ganjabai, 2009 (240) E.L.T. 161 (S.C.) "9. All rules of procedures are handmaids of justice. The language employed by the draftsman of processual (sic) law may be liber....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....able under the services rendered taxable by the Finance Act, 1994. 6. But the fact remains that as per the definition, it appears that the packaging activity done by the assessee-Appellants did not fall within the ambit of 'packing services' and was, therefore, not liable for Service Tax by virtue of being "manufacture" as already discussed. 7. Hence, in the light of above discussion, we are of the considered view that the activity of the assessee-Appellants is of 'manufacture' and falls within the category of Section 2(f)(iii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In the instant case, the assessee-Appellants had already paid the Service Tax under the bonafide belief and the half yearly returns were also being accepted by t....