2025 (11) TMI 1273

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... per drawing and specification provided by the client. Their main clients are Tata Steel, Larsen & Tubro, Mitsubishi, Jindal, NTPC etc. During the course of their business, M/s. SENBO Engineering Ltd. issued them a Work Order dated 06.04.2009 for fabrication of steel structure required for the construction of flyover/road. The Appellants were fabricating those structures of steel items supplied by the client. On completion of the job, SENBO was taking delivery of the goods with their own cost of transportation. M/s. SENBO and the appellants were aware that the said activity was undertaking of construction of road service, which was outside the purview of the Service Tax and for that reason, a provision as kept in the said Work Order of that....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....that the appellants were not required to charge any Service Tax. The appellants had received the goods under Annexure-2 Challan from SENBO and also receiving the goods directly from the steel plant on account of SENBO, the appellants did not take any credit and job worked goods were returned to them after job work. (ii) It is submitted that the officers of the department during the course of audit under EA-2000, on verification of records observed that the undertaking of work by appellants awarded to them by M/s. SENBO is classifiable under Business Auxiliary Service and accordingly requested for payment of Service Tax vide Spot No.2 dated 01.03.2012. Their direction to reverse the Cenvat Credit was complied with. 4. The above i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... by their initial query in 2009 and the EA 2000 Audit conducted on February and March 2012. During this time, the Revenue has viewed the activity as Service, but dropped further proceedings after being convinced that the Service Tax was exempted. Therefore, no case of suppression can be alleged on the appellant to issue the SCN demanding Excise Duty after more than 5 years of their initial knowledge. Hence, it is prayed that the appeal may be allowed on account of time bar also. 10. The Ld AR appearing on behalf of the Revenue submits that the activity undertaken by the appellant amounts to undertaking job-work amounting to manufacture, in terms of Section 2 (f) of CEA 1944. Therefore, the appellant was required to clear the goods on pay....