TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 1351
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....which the service tax allegedly became payable up to the date on which the same was paid, under Sections 78, 77 and 76 respectively of the Act. The period involved is from 01.03.2005 to 18.03.2005 (18 days). 2. The facts, in brief, are that Tata Steel Limited despatched excise duty paid Cold Rolled Coils ('C.R. Coils') to, amongst others, TRL, which acted as its conversion agents/external processing agents for carrying out the processing job of cutting/slitting the said coils and thereafter despatched the said coils as per direction of Tata Steel to customers' stockyards, depots etc. of Tata Steel. Pursuant to Circular No. 584/21/2001- Cx dated 07.09.2001, issued by CBEC stating that the activity of cutting of H.R./C.R. Coils of iron or non-alloyed steel into sheets and slitting of sheets into strips, amounted to 'manufacture' of excisable goods in terms of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. TRL, as per direction of jurisdictional Central Excise authority communicated by letter dated 21.03.2002, started paying duty on the cut/slit C.R. coils cleared by it as conversion agent of Tata Steel from its factory. Consequently, TRL availed and utilized cenvat credit of the du....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nst this order of the Tribunal, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, which was registered as Appeal No. 61 of 2006. The said appeal was rejected by the said Hon'ble High Court by its judgment dated November 23, 2016, upholding the Tribunal's order. 5. Meanwhile, the Additional Commissioner issued a show cause notice dated 20.04.2006, which led to the passing of an adjudication order dated 11.04.2007. As per the adjudication order, although the activity of cutting/slitting of duty paid C.R. coils carried out by TRL during the period 1.3.2005 to 18.03.2005 on processing charges basis, as conversion agent of Tata Steel had resulted in TRL rendering taxable service of 'Business Auxiliary Service' under the Act, it had failed to make payment of the service tax payable. The Additional Commissioner accordingly confirmed the tax demand of Rs. 26,01,069/- along with interest and imposed penalties as abovestated upon TRL. Appeal of TRL against this order was allowed with consequential relief, upon setting aside of the adjudication order, by the Commissioner (Appeals) by the impugned order dated 15.10.2007. 6. On behalf of the appel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r otherwise of the duty of central excise, particularly when the latter issue has not obviously attained the finality. (c) The assessee has engaged in the activities of cutting, slitting and rendering all other specified jobs/works as detailed in the work order executed with their principal namely, M/s Tata Steels Ltd., Jamshedpur. The show cause notice categorically alleged that such activities would be covered under the "Business Auxiliary Service" under clause (V) of Section 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994. In order to reinforce the allegation, the said show cause notice, inter alia, referred to the activity not amounting to manufacture so as to rule out the levy of duty of excise in the matter. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) has totally ignored this proposition in the instant case and erroneously observed that the Department continued to realise excise duty from the appellant. (d) The issue of service tax liability on job working "not amounting to manufacture" was settled one in as much as the Tax Research Unit of CBEC, New Delhi under the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue vide its circular MF(DR) letter F.No. 341/13/2005-TRU dated 12/05/2005 cle....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of K. R. Packaging Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex.& Service Tax in 2017 (51) STR 438 (Tri - Del). It was further submitted that there was no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and that the issue relating to payment of central excise duty and availment of cenvat credit was sub-judice has no force since the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court has decided the issue finally by rejecting the Revenue's appeal and affirming the Tribunal's order. 8. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 9. The following undisputed facts emerge from the records of the instant proceedings:- (a) On the self-same activity of cutting/slitting of duty paid C.R. coils, central excise duty of Rs. 31.94 crores approximately has been paid by TRL and released by the jurisdictional Central Excise and Service Tax authorities, the same Commissioner. The excise duty paid and realised, inter alia, covered the same final products removed from the respondent's factory during the period from March 2, 2005 to March 18, 2005, the period involved herein. (b) The amount of Rs. 31.94 crores was paid by utilising cenvat cred....