2018 (2) TMI 1414

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....from 13/06/2005 to 13/09/2009. During the period under dispute, the appellant entered into two separate agreements with M/s TATA Tea Ltd. namely i.e. (1) lease/rent agreement dated 12/12/2000 and (2) manufacturing agreement dated 20/11/2006. As per the lease agreement, the appellant made the factory premises available on lease to M/s TATA Tea Ltd. and as per the manufacturing agreement, the appellant received charges for carrying out the activity of blending and packing of tea on behalf of M/s TATA Tea Ltd. The Department, after investigation, came to the conclusion that the activity of packing undertaken by the appellant for M/s TATA Tea Ltd. was liable to service tax under the category of Packaging Service falling under Section 65 (105) (....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....um duty benefit but also the relief from payment of service tax on the consideration received by way of lease agreement upto 31/05/2007. 5. The learned DR justified the impugned order. 6. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of record, we find that the appellant has carried out the activity of blending and packing tea on behalf of M/s TATA Tea Ltd. It stands admitted by the appellant that the activity carried out was covered within the definition of the service of packaging and hence they have admitted their liability to pay service tax on such activity. In this connection, their only request is that the cum duty benefit should be extended to them. In this regard, he relied on the following case laws :- (i) CCE & CUS, Patna vs. A....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ollowing the above decision of the Tribunal, we allow the cum tax benefit and uphold the reduced demand. 9. Next we turn to the lease agreement as per which the appellant has received consideration towards lease rent. The stand of the Revenue is that even though there is a separate lease agreement dated 12/12/2000, it is nothing but a means of getting additional consideration for the packaging activity carried out on behalf of M/s TATA Tea Ltd. After going through the record of the case, we find no justification for Revenue to take such a stand. It is not disputed that a separate lease agreement has been formally executed by the appellant with M/s TATA Tea Ltd. for giving their premises on lease. We note that the separate service of rentin....