9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 248X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i N. Bhanu Kiran, Asst. Commissioner/AR for the Respondent. ORDER Per: Mr. P. Venkata Subba Rao 1. This appeal is filed against Order-in-Appeal No. 1/2011(H-I)ST, dated 27.01.2011. The appellant herein is a manufacturer of PVC pipes and PVC Resins. The appellants supplies these pipes to their clients/farmers and lays the pipes in their fields and joins them as per their requirement. The depa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the demand may be dropped along with interest and no penalties be imposed. Ld. Lower authority confirmed the demand with interest and imposed penalties under sections 76, 77 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. Aggrieved, the appellant appealed to the first appellate authority who upheld the order of the lower authority and rejected their appeal, holding that appellants are engaged in laying and jo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts these pipes to be laid in their fields, they render this service as well for a charge and ensure that the pipes are properly interconnected and are leak proof. Mere laying of pipes and joining them cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be held as processing of goods chargeable to service tax under Business Auxiliary Service, as per Section 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994. He relies on the judg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant was known to the department and in fact they had paid service tax for some period and therefore there was a bonafide belief of any taxability of the activity and any suppression of facts. He would, therefore, argue that the demand is not sustainable and hence the impugned order may be set aside. 4. Ld. DR reiterates the findings of the lower authority. 5. We have considered the argument ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
