2020 (2) TMI 515
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has rejected the appeals of the appellant. The details of all the 4 appeals are given herein below:- Appeal No. Period of dispute Demand confirmed/Dropped in OIO OIA No. and date ST/493/2009 16.06.2005 to 31.12.2005 Rs. 3,54,604/- confirmed along with interest and penalties u/s 76 & 78. OIA No.24/2009-ST dt. 04/03/2009. Upheld the confirmation of the demand. ST/20383/2016 01.01.2006 to 31.03.2008 Demand Rs. 18,92,638/- dropped. No. CAL-EXCUS-000-APP-444-15-16 dt. 13/01/2016. Set aside the OIO and confirmed the demand. ST/21684/2018 ST/21686/2018 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2015 Demand confirmed Rs. 14,55,018/- with interest and penalties. Demand confirmed Rs. 3,59,574/- OIA No. COCEXCUS-000-APP-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ame for longer period. After following the due process, the original authority confirmed the demand along with interest and also imposed penalty. Aggrieved by the said order appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) who rejected the appeal. Hence the present appeal. 3. Heard both sides and perused the records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable as the same has been passed without properly considering the facts and law. He further submitted that in the impugned order, Commissioner(Appeals) has not considered the submissions made by the appellant and has simply confirmed the Order-in-Original without giving any reasons. He further submitted that the Commissioner(Appeal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ovable property was also demanded along with service tax on Business Auxiliary Service and both the authorities confirmed the demand under BAS amounting to Rs. 14,55,018/- and under 'renting of immovable property' amounting to Rs. 3,59,574/-. He further submitted that the appellant in reply to the show-cause notice has given the detailed description of the entire processes carried out by them which is nothing but a manufacturing process and therefore according to the appellant, they are not liable to service tax. Learned counsel further submitted that their activity falls under the manufacture as their goods falls under Chapter 16 of the CETA 1985 by virtue of Chapter Note 3 of the said Chapter 16. In support of his submissions, the appella....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... prevent dehydration, discolouration and deterioration. The ice used is a preservative and will act as a protective measure to avoid spoilage. These stored materials will be de-skinned and the viscera and other intestinal matters which are not edible are removed using scissors, knives and other hand tools which is the next stage of processing operation. The peeled deveined or de-skinned materials are then subjected to further processing by removal of the eyes, beaks, alimentary canals etc and are treated with permitted additives and anti-oxidant like sodium poly phosphate, sodium chloride, hydrogen peroxide etc as preservatives. To improve the colour, yield, texture and better product appearance additives like ML TR-79, Caffdos, Al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....finition of manufacture as provided in Section 2(f) which is reproduced herein below:- Section 2(f): Manufacture includes any process i. Incidental or ancillary to the completion of manufactured product. ii. Which is specified in relation to any goods in Section or Chapter notes of (the First Schedule) to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986) as amounting to (manufacture; or) iii. Which, in relation to the goods specified in the Third Schedule, involves packing or repacking of such goods in a unit container or labeling or relabelling of containers including the declaration or alteration of retail sale price on it or adoption of any other treatment on the goods to render the product marketable to....


TaxTMI
TaxTMI