TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 972
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at is to be decided by us is: whether the activity of job work, as involved in the present case, rendered by the appellant would amount to manufacturing activity so as to take the same out of the purview of 'business auxiliary service' under Section 65 (19) of the Finance Act, 1994? 3.1 Brief and undisputed facts, which are relevant for our consideration, as could be gathered from the documents placed on record including the orders of the lower authorities, are that the appellant is engaged in the process of "powder coating" on job work basis to M/s. Kanchi Fabrications (P) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'KFPL') and this prompted the Revenue, for the period from July 2006 to October 2008, to issue a Show Cause Notice dated 06.07.2009 the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ctivity of the appellant of powder coating would not bring any new goods into existence, for which reliance has been placed by the First Appellate Authority on an order of the co-ordinate Bangalore Bench of the CESTAT in the case of A.G. Shibu v. Commissioner of Cus., C.Ex. & S.T., Cochin [2008 (10) S.T.R. 317 (Tribunal - Bangalore)]. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and have gone through the documents placed on record including the orders of lower authorities. 8.1 A perusal of the Order-in-Original reveals that the appellant had filed its detailed reply dated 11.09.2009 to the Show Cause Notice, inter alia indicating that they had not complied with the necessary declaration under Notification No. 214/86-C.E. and that M/s. KFPL, bei....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s for M/s. BPL Telecom Pvt. Ltd., the main manufacturer. The facts borne on record reveal that the said M/s. KFPL appears to have admitted that the powder coating was done by the appellant herein, for which they were availing CENVAT Credit but without filing any declaration with the jurisdictional Officer, however, the powder coating charges were also collected from M/s. BPL Telecom Pvt. Ltd. by the said M/s. KFPL, who are the main service provider. Hence, it was contended that the Service Tax liability was on the main contractor / main service provider i.e., M/s. KFPL, who appears to have remitted the Service Tax, and not on the appellant, who had only discharged the service in the capacity of a sub-contractor. 9.2 The Learned Larger Benc....