TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (9) TMI 171
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant was also undertaking the process of hot dip galvanization of seamless tubes of steel, on job work basis. 2. Their factory was visited by the officers of Anti-Evasion Branch on 18/08/2011, who resumed various records. Scrutiny of the same revealed that the appellant was undertaking the process of galvanization of seamless steel tubes and parts of steel structure, on job work basis for M/s ABB Ltd., M/s Advance Steel Tubes Ltd. and M/s S.S. Buildtech. Inasmuch as the principal manufacturers for whom the appellant was undertaking the job work process, were not paying duty on their final product either on account of the exemption being availed by them or on account of being below the small scale exemption....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tice dated 20/04/2012, by invoking the extended period of limitation. The appellants have taken a categorical stand that during the period in question, the entire facts were being brought to the notice of the Revenue inasmuch as they were reversing the Cenvat credit availed on the Zinc and Furnace Oil used in the job work and they were also paying service tax on the said process. As such there could be no mala fide on their part so as to invoke the longer period. 4. We note that prior to the introduction of Chapter 4, process of galvanization was held as non manufacture process by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The process which does not amount to manufacture attracts service tax on the job work activity. The appellants were admittedly paying ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the returns regularly to the department and the department was well aware of the facts is not tenable as the ER-1 return does not reflect the details of the activities like process of manufacture or job work. Thus, the payment of service tax instead of Central Excise duty on the process of galvanization carried by the appellant was an act of deception to suppress the fact that the processed goods attracted Central Excise duty. Therefore, I hold that the appellant contravened the provisions of Rule 4,5,6,8, & 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 with intent to evade payment of Central Excise duty by suppressing the fact that the activity carried out by them for and on behalf of the clients does not fall under the definition of "Business Aux....