TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 893X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Excise Appeal No. 4118 of 2012 & 55107 of 2013 - A/50153-50154/2017-EX[DB] - Dated:- 6-1-2017 - Mr. (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President And Mr. Ashok K. Arya, Member (Technical) (Rep by Sh. T. Chandran Nair, Adv.) (Rep. by Shi Yogesh Agarwal Sh. Govind Dixit, DRs) Per Mr. (Dr.) Satish Chandra Both the cross appeals, one by the assessee-appellants and another by the Department, have been filed against the common Order-in-Appeal No. 270-CE/MRT-I/2012 dated 31.08.2012 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The period in dispute in the instant appeals is from August, 2009 to March, 2010. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee-Appellants are engaged in the packing and labelling business. The assessee-Appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and prior to it, was subject to Service Tax. Further, the product manufacturer was availing the area based exemption. 4. It may be mentioned that it is the claim of the learned counsel for the assessee-Appellants that once the banding activity covered within the scope of 'manufacturer' as per Section 2(f)(ii) and 2(f)(iii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Note 6 of Chapter 34 of the Central Excise Tariff, service element becomes secondary to principal manufacturing activity of banding and the Appellant can no longer claim to be mere service provider as per the ratio laid down in the case of Vasantham Enterprises vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh, 2015 (37) STR 1007 (Tri-Del). In this case, it was also ob ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r or labelling or re-labelling of containers including the declaration or alteration of retail sale price on it or adoption of any other treatment on the goods to render the product marketable to the consumer. It is vital to mention that in the instant case, the assessee-Appellants were regularly paying the Service Tax and the Department had never raised any objection to the same for a considerable period, which implied that the Department was in agreement with the contention of the assessee-Appellants that their packaging activity was taxable under the services rendered taxable by the Finance Act, 1994. 6. But the fact remains that as per the definition, it appears that the packaging activity done by the assessee-Appellants did not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
