TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 164X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 2 (f) of Central Excise Act, 1944. Further going by note 6 of section XVII of Central Excise Tariff, these processes per se also are defined to be process of manufacture because these processes are essential for transforming the semi-finished bus body into a complete and finished article. Thus the argument of Revenue fails. Whether shifting of goods within the factory premises amounts to "production or processing of goods for, or on behalf of, the client" - Held that:- Obviously the word "production" cannot cover shifting of goods. The word "processing" used in the company of "production" cannot be understood to cover any activity on the goods but only those activities which bring about some change in goods. These words cannot cover ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jobs are illustrated as under: Nature of Work Rate per Bus (Rs.) Inspection Rectification of Buses (including denting painting work) 1100 Shifting of bus structure from inter plant (loading and unloading) 1750 Material Scrap Shifting and supply to Lines Misc. work as per measurement 750 3. Revenue was of the view that the above activities carried out by the appellant amounts to "production or processing of goods for, or on behalf of, the client" as specified in clause (v) of section 65 (19) of Finance Act, 1994 defining "Business Auxiliary Service" and service tax was payable which was not paid. So Revenue issued one Show Cause Notice for demanding tax amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the bus bodies built in the factory of JCBL Ltd. 6. They have an alternate argument that if at all any process is held to be not amounting to manufacture and for that reason considered to fall under the definition under section 65(19), they are eligible for exemption from service tax on such activity as provided in Notification 08/2005-ST dated 01-03-2005. This notification provides exemption to job-workers doing processes not amounting to manufacture on goods supplied by a principal manufacturer subject to the condition that the principal manufacturer pays excise duty on the excisable goods so produced. In this case JCBL was paying excise duty on the bus bodies in the manufacture of which the appellant carried out certain processes. 7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by JCBL Ltd. However none of these activities per se bring any new goods into existence and hence these activities of the appellant is not manufacturing activities. When the tax liability of the appellant is considered, only the activity carried out by the appellant should be taken into account. There have been judicial decisions to the effect that processes like galvanization, electroplating, painting etc will not amount to manufacture because no new goods come into existence through such processes. 10. The Ld. A.R. also argues that the JCBL has been clearing both dutiable motor vehicles and exempted motor vehicles. Since the appellant has not produced evidence to show that all the goods manufactured by JCBL were cleared on payment of ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tivity on the goods but only those activities which bring about some change in goods. These words cannot cover activities like shifting, transportation, storage etc within its scope. Shifting of waste arising in the process of manufacturing is one stage further removed from manufacturing activity. So we do not see any merit in the argument of Revenue in this regard. 13. As argued by the appellant this activity did not amount to cargo handling service either because shifting of the goods within the factory premises, when the goods could not be considered to be cargo, could not be considered as "cargo handling". Anyway such a classification is not under dispute in this proceeding. 14. We also note that the claim of the appellant for exemp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
