Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2024 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (2) TMI 968 - AT - Service TaxNature of activity - activity amounting to manufacture of providing of services - Classification of services - Business Auxiliary Service, Business Support Service and Renting Services or not - appellants were engaged in providing the servies to their customers who have sent the said plates/ coils for cutting - Demand on handling charges and rent charged - HELD THAT:- The appellants are job-workers inasmuch as they are cutting the coils/ plates of their clients according to the specifications given to them; they are collecting job charges for the same; they are discharging service tax on the coils/ plates which are ultimately used in the manufacture of non-excisable goods by their clients; they have not discharged service tax on the goods which were ultimately used in the manufacture of excisable goods which are cleared on payment of duty by their clients. Learned Counsel for the appellants argues that the job-work undertaken by them amounts to manufacture in view of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of JINDAL STAINLESS STEELWAY LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIGAD [2014 (9) TMI 658 - CESTAT MUMBAI], where it was held that the activity of the appellant is amount to manufacture and appeal was allowed on the merit as well as on limitation. It is found that as the job-work undertaken by the appellant amounts to manufacture, service tax cannot be levied on them under both Heads “Business Auxiliary Service” and “Business Support Service”. Therefore, any discussion on other issues like cumduty price, extended period, small-scale exemption become redundant and therefore, other issues not taken up. Demand on handling charges and rent charged - HELD THAT:- It is found that they are incidental to the job-work and it cannot be alleged that they are providing separately these services. It is not the case of the Department that the appellants are providing these services separately to different clients. Moreover, even if it is construed that the appellant is providing a bundle of services, the main service i.e. job-work of cutting plates/ coils is to be considered for levy of service tax. In view of the aforesaid reasoning, the job-work undertaken by the appellants does not attract levy of any service tax. Thus, the job-work undertaken by the appellants does not attract levy of any service tax - appeal allowed.
|