2020 (3) TMI 484

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....vocate for the Appellant Shri Rajeev Ranjan, Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER PER: ARCHANA WADHWA After hearing both the sides duly represented by Shri Rajesh Chhibber learned Advocate appearing for the appellant and Shri Rajeev Ranjan, learned Authorised Representative appearing for the Revenue, we find that the appellant is primarily engaged in the manufacture of G.I. Pipe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lvanization undertaken by the appellant is not a manufacturing process and same amounts to providing 'Business Auxiliary Service' to principal manufacturer and as such the appellant should have paid the service tax on the same. Accordingly, show cause notice dated 24.04.2012 was raised against them proposing confirmation of service tax of Rs. 11,36,720.00/- for the period October, 2006 to March, 2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rsal of Cenvat credit. Learned Original Adjudicating Authority has accepted the above position but has still invoked the extended period on the sole ground that nature of job work was not disclosed. 4. After hearing the learned A.R. we are of the view that the appeal can be disposed on the point of limitation itself. Admittedly, the entire demand is beyond the normal period of limitation. It is a....