TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (8) TMI 32
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e appellant is engaged only in the activity of processing of machining on the semi finished casting which has not covered under the "Production Of Goods On Behalf Of Client". He submits that the activity of processing was brought under this entry only w.e.f. 16.06.2005., as per the amendment in the Finance Act, 2005. Therefore, prior to this date the processing of goods was not liable to service tax under Business Auxiliary Services. In support he placed reliance on single member judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Gedee Weiler Pvt. Ltd Vs. CCE & ST,- Coimbatore 2010 (18) STR 417 (Tri-Chennai.). 3. On the other hand Ms. Nitina Nagori Ld. Deputy Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned order. She submits that the activity carried out by the appellant is clearly an activity of production of goods which was taxable under Business Auxiliary Services throughout the period covered in the present case. She placed reliance on judgment of Division Bench of this Tribunal in the case of PSL Corrosion Control Services Ltd vs. CCE and Custom, Daman 2008 (12) STR 504 (Tri-Ahmd). 4. We have carefully considered the submission made by b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anufacture". If the meaning of the expression "production" as appearing in the definition of the above Services has to be limited to the fact that that the activity must result in emergence of new goods i.e. manufacture than the clarification below the definition of the said services excluding the activity amounting to manufacture within the meaning of clause (f) of Section 2 of Central Excise Act would become otiose. A cumulative reading of the definition and the definition in sub-rule (v) given at the end leads to only one and inevitable conclusion that the "production of goods", which may not amount to manufacture in strict sense of Section 2(f) would also be covered by the said category of services. So, even if the Tribunal has held in their own case that activity undertaken by them does not amount to manufacture in terms of Section 2(f), the same would not mean the same may not amount to "production" of goods in the light of the definition "Business Auxiliary Service". In fact, we may have some insight of the Legislative intent by giving careful thought to the above definition. It seems that legislation was aware of the overlapping of the two expressions "production" and "manu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 present case, there is no 3rd person. Thus, the activity so undertaken does not fall under business auxiliary service or any other existing taxable services". 12. Learned SDR submits that admittedly, the appellants are not buying, producing the new coated bars themselves, neither are they selling the coated bars in the market. Said activity of coating is being done by them for others and as such, it has to be held as if the same has been done on behalf of their clients. 13. We find that the coating is being done by the appellants on the bars supplied by M/s. L.& T and M/s. H.C.C. who have been awarded the contract for construction of roads, bridges etc. As per the terms and specifications prescribed by M/s. Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd. to the main contractors that 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... service", the above argument of the learned Advocate does not carry much weight. 15. Having discussed the various issues in the preceding paragraphs, we hold that the appellants are liable to pay service tax in respect of the activity undertaken by them during the relevant period. However, the quantum of such tax is required to be re-quantified by extending the benefit of Cenvat credit of duty on coating material used for epoxy coating and the credit in respect of other input services as available during the relevant period. Though the said plea stands accepted by the Commissioner in his impugned order on principle, the same stands rejected on the ground that no documents were produced in support of the above claim. Surprisingly, the Commissioner while observing that the appellant shall produce documentary evidence in support of this claim before the jurisdictional Central Excise officer, who shall allow such benefit in accordance with law after verifying the genuineness of the documents has confirmed the demand of duty as proposed in the notice without extending the benefit. We are of the view that there being no dispute about availability of the said benefit, the demand....