TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (11) TMI 1176
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt under excise and service tax for discharge of duties and payment of service tax. During the relevant period, the appellant has carried out the job work for the pre-fabricated structure using the raw material such as steel plates, pipes, round bar, tube, channel etc. supplied by the customer. The appellant has carried out process of cutting, welding, bending etc. as per specification/ design of the customer which on completion of job on the strength of job work challan, it has been dispatched to the customer with delivery challan and job work invoice. The appellant has discharged the service tax on the job work charges. The case of the department is that the activity of cutting, welding, bending etc. for manufacture of parts of structure ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re is absolutely no suppression of fact for the reason that the entire activity of the appellant was known to the department particularly, when the appellant have been discharging the service tax on the same activity on which the department has demanded the excise duty, since the appellant have discharged the service tax, under a belief that the activity is amounts to service, not manufacture then there is no malafide intention on the part of the appellant. Moreover, for the same reason, the penalty under Section 11 AC is also not imposable as the issue involved is interpretation of notification. He placed reliance on the following judgments:- * SAVIRA INDUSTRIES 2016 (331) ELT 504 (TRI CHENNAI) * DIAMOND CEMENTS LTD 2012 (283) ELT 226 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ghtly evaded the duty, firstly, the activity involved is whether manufacture or otherwise covered by the various judgments cited by the Learned Counsel wherein, in various judgments, it is held that the activity of cutting, welding, bending etc. do not amount to manufacture. At the same time there are contrary judgments to each other and the matter was decided by the Larger Bench in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra. However, the specific activity has to be looked into in each and every case, then only this judgment can be applied. Therefore, in this undisputed fact the issue involved is of interpretation of the term manufacturer. Therefore, no malafide intention can be attributed to the appellant. Secondly, the appellant who were registered ....