TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1584
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9/2005-ST dated 16.06.2005 in respect of the job work activities. 2. The brief facts are the appellant is carrying out the silver finishing (plating), cubic painting etc., on various goods like arm rest, stereo cover, panel boxes etc. Alleging that the activity carried out by the Respondent does not amount to manufacture as per Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, it is considered as 'Business Auxiliary Service' under Section 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994, proceedings were initiated demanding service tax for the period from 2004-05 to 2007-08 and the service tax liability was worked out to Rs.2,80,56,260/-. Accordingly, Show Cause Notice was issued. However, the Adjudication authority held that by virtue of Notification No. 08....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce (SCN) demand was made without proposing to classify the impugned activity under the head of "Business Auxiliary Service" and simply proposed to treat the value of service of Rs. 25,46,57,501/- as declared in the financials as "taxable value" for the period 2004-05 to 2007-08. This issue is considered by the Tribunal in the matter of M/s. Indian Machine Tools Manufacturers Association Vs. CCE Panchkula (2023 (11) CENTAX-213) (Tri. Cha), wherein it is held that such method of demand is unsustainable. 5. The Learned Counsel further submits that from the definition of 'Business Auxiliary Service' which stood from 10.09.2004 to 16.06.2005, it is clear that up to 16.06.2005 the service provided i.e production on behalf of the client....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Tri-Chennai), wherein it was held that the appellant had not undertaken the activity of bending, drilling etc., on behalf of any other person. They had under taken the activities themselves for a fee. It was only with effect from 16.06.2005 such activities undertaken by a person for another was brought under 'Business Auxiliary Service' and prior to 16.06.2005, the appellant's activities could be described as processing of goods for their customers. Thus the Hon'ble CESTAT has set aside demand of service tax under 'Business Auxiliary Service' on the job work rendered by the appellant to their clients. The facts and circumstances being similar in their case, the ratio of the above decision is squarely applicable and t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nal product at the time of clearance of goods. It is especially provided that 'appropriate duty of excise' shall not include 'nil' rate of duty or wholly exempt from duty of excise. 7. Therefore by virtue of the said notification, the goods produced are processed on job work basis (whether the process/activity amounts to manufacture or otherwise) are fully exempted, if the conditions specified at (a), (b) and (c) above are satisfied. In Respondent's case, the moulded parts/components of various assemblies or interior parts of motor vehicles, which are semi-finished in nature, are supplied to the Respondent by Tata Auto Comp Systems, TG Kirloskar Automotive Pvt., Ltd., Mahindra and Mahindra, Toyota Boshoku Automotive India....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pam Pharmaceuticals Vs. Collector, 1995(78) ELT 401(SC) v. Gopal Zarda Udyog Vs. CCE, 2005 (188) ELT 251(SC), vi. Anand Nishikawa Co. Ltd., Vs. CCE, Meerut 2005 (188) ELT 149 (SC), 9. Heard both sides and perused the records. 10. We find that as regards invoking of the extended period of limitation, there is no finding given by the Adjudication authority regarding invoking of the extended period of limitation, hence we are not expressing any view regarding the demand invoking the extended period of limitation. On merit, we have gone through the findings given by the Adjudication authority, where it is held that prior to 16.06.2005, the assessee was in production of goods for the client and not on behalf of the client....