2018 (8) TMI 402

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....te) for the appellant and Shri Pawan Kumar Singh (Supdt.) AR for the Revenue we find that the appellant is engaged in job work of galvanization of pipes sent by the principal manufacturers and by treating the same as service falling under the category of 'Business Auxiliary Service', was paying the service tax. However, the Revenue entertained a view the activity of Zinc Coating or galvanization undertaken by the appellant amounts to manufacture and as such the appellant is liable to pay excise duty on the same. It is seen that though the appellant was exempted under Notification No. 214/86-CE, being a job worker only, but inasmuch as the principal manufacturers were not paying any duty on their final product as they were not regist....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r the Service Tax and was discharging service tax liability accordingly. In such a scenario, it cannot be said that the Revenue was not aware of the appellants' activities. The Commissioner (Appeals) while dealing with the plea of limitation, raised by the appellant, observed as under:- "As regards the extended period of limitation, I find that galvanization of goods falling under Chapter 73 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 amounts to manufacture and as such the appellants were liable to pay Central Excise duty in respect of these goods cleared by them after galvanization. It is observed that instead of taking Central Excise registration and paying Central Excise duty on the galvanized goods, the appellants registered themselve....