TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 810X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Larger Bench that yamming process amounts to manufacturer - Decided in favor of the assessee - ST/1765/2010 - ST/439/2011(PB) - Dated:- 30-8-2011 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Shri Rakesh Kumar, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri Ramesh Nair, for the Appellant. Shri Rajender Gupta, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J) (for the Bench) (Oral)]. - Service Tax of Rs. 63, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were initiated against the applicant appellant alleging that the activity undertaken by them does not amount to manufacture. As such it is to be concluded that the said activity is covered under the category of Business Auxiliary service liable to Service Tax. The original authority by referring to and relying upon the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Weston Electronics Ltd. v. C.C.E., ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fferent article must emerge, having distinctive name, characters and use. (3) As mentioned above, before and after yamming process of the picture tube remains the picture tube remains the picture tube, therefore the process of yamming does not amount to manufacturing process. (4) The Adjudicating authority has erred in relying upon the judgement of the Hon ble CESTAT the case of M/s. W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal stands filed against the Larger Bench decision or the said Larger Bench decision stands reversed by the higher appellate forum. It is also admitted that the yamming process involved in the present appeals as also before Larger Bench are identical. Strangely Revenue while challenging the original adjudicating authority order by way of filing an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), in the year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s amount to manufacture, stands finally concluded by the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Weston Electronics Ltd. referred supra. As such, the contra view advanced by the revenue, cannot be accepted. We accordingly, hold that the confirmation of Service Tax against the appellant is not justified and the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals) is not sustainable. The same is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
