TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 511X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to be so since in that model of operation the petitioner purchases the vehicle and therefore become the owner and the bullet proofing value addition on such vehicles would amount to a service to self. There is no activity of processing of goods on behalf of another since the vehicles belong to the petitioner and the value addition is done to its own vehicles. - Stay granted. Second model of operation - vehicles in issue are supplied by the customer and on such vehicles bullet proofing is done by the petitioner - held that:- this activity amounts production or procuring of goods on behalf of another. - It is also not clear from the order whether the petitioner furnished documentary proof in support of its claim for exclusion of the v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his model of activity is Rs. 34,73,926/-. The period of the levy involved is April 2006 to June 2011. 2. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner contests the conclusion in the adjudication order on the ground that in respect of both of operation models no service tax is due on the consideration received from customers which are the Punjab Police or the Military department, as the case may be. It is further contended that the activity of the petitioner does not amount to manufacture and therefore is not exigible to excise duty under the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It is further contended that since the transactions fall within the purview of sale, within the legislative domain of the list -II of the 7th schedule of the Constitution, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vehicles in issue are supplied by the customer and on such vehicles bullet proofing is done by the petitioner; this activity amounts production or procuring of goods on behalf of another. The issue whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefits of Notification No. 12/2003 dated 01.07.2003 has been canvassed unsuccessfully before the adjudicating authority. The petitioner claimed the benefit of exclusion of the value of materials incorporated in the processing of goods, under exemption Notification No. 12/2003-ST dated 01.07.2003. This claim was rejected by the adjudicating authority in para 47 of the order on some wooly reasoning, namely that the benefits of the Notification are applicable to only those transactions which involve an el ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
