TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 766X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the period w.e.f.16.06.2005 - benefit of N/N. 8/2005-ST dated 01.03.2005 - Held that:- The activities carried out by the appellant for BSP is in the nature of processing. It is evident from the record that the appellant was required to recover of iron steel scrap from various stages of manufacture and the collected scrap was to be returned to BSP, but the benefit was denied to the appellant by taking the view that such scrap cannot be covered by expression of raw materials or semi-finished goods . But such a view is not called for. The scrap is nothing, but a raw material for use in melting and further manufacture within the iron and steel plant - Giving due consideration to such end-use Certificate submitted by the Public Sector Underta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Finance Act, 1994. This sub-section reads as: production of goods on behalf of client; or (upto 15.06.2005). The said sub-section was amended w.e.f. 16.06.2005 and after amendment, it reads as follows: 65(19)(v): production or processing of goods for or on behalf of the client 3. After due process of adjudication, the lower appellate authority ordered for payment of service tax as proposed in the show-cause notice. In addition, he also ordered for payment of interest as well as penalties under various Sections of the Finance Act, 1994. This order is under challenge in the present appeal. 4. The appellant is represented by Shri H. Shukla, ld. Advocate and Revenue is represented by Shri K. Chowdhury, ld. D.R. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efit, since the scrap generated in BSL can neither be considered as raw materials or semi-finished goods as covered by the Notification. He submitted that any exemption Notification is required to be strictly interpreted as held by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Commr. of Customs (Import), Mumbai Vs. Dilip Kumar Company reported in 2018 (361) ELT 577 (S.C.). 6.2 Finally, he submitted that the Notification had a further condition that the material after processing is to be returned back to the client for use in or in relation to the manufacture of goods, on which appropriate duty of Excise is payable. He submitted that there is nothing on record to the effect that the second limb of the Notification as above, has been satisfie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n addition to production of goods. The claim of the appellant is that the liability of service tax would stand extinguished through the Notification No.8/2005-ST dated 01.03.2005. The lower appellate authority has denied the benefit of the said exemption to the appellant. For ready reference, we reproduce below the Notification No.8/2005-ST ibid : In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 93 of the Finance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994)(hereinafter referred to as the Finance Act), the Central Government, on being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts the taxable service of [production or processing of goods for, or on behalf of, the client] referred in sub-clause (v) of clause (1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y taking the view that such scrap cannot be covered by expression of raw materials or semi-finished goods . But such a view is not called for. The scrap is nothing, but a raw material for use in melting and further manufacture within the iron and steel plant. 11. On behalf of Revenue, the ld.D.R. has further raised a doubt about the satisfaction of the condition of the second limb of the Notification i.e. to the effect that the processed goods have been returned back to the client and the same has been further used in the manufacture of other goods, on which appropriate duty of excise is payable. In this connection, we note that the ld. Advocate on behalf of the appellant, has submitted a certificate dated 4th September, 2009, issued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
