9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 226X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso for imposing penalty. After due process of law, the original authority confirmed the demand of service tax of Rs. 5,76,886/- on the ground that the final products manufactured and exported by the EOU are wholly exempted by Notification No. 24/2003-CE dated 31.3.2003 and therefore the appellant cannot avail benefit of Notification No. 8/205-ST dated 1.3.2005. In appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the same. Hence this appeal. 2. On behalf of the appellant, ld. counsel Shri J. Shankarraman appeared and argued the matter. He submitted that the appellant received various items from 100% EOU for doing job work and the goods were returned to such 100% EOU who exported the goods under bond. The department has raised the demand alleging that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of Service Tax - 2014 (33) STR 56. He therefore prayed to set aside the demand. 3. The ld. AR Shri Jagan Babu appeared and argued on behalf of the department. He supported the findings in the impugned order. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The issue is with regard to the demand of service tax under the category of BAS on the job work activity done by the appellant who returned the goods to the 100% EOU. The issue whether the appellant is liable to pay service tax under the category of BAS for the job work activity done for 100% EOU has been analyzed by the Tribunal in the case of Interplex Electronics India P. Ltd. (supra). The relevant portion of the order is reproduced as under:- "5.3 Even though the issue can be decided on the sole ground ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respect of duty of excise leviable under Section 3 of said Central Excise Act shall not apply to such goods if brought to any other place in India." This clearly shows that this is not an unconditional exemption notification. Exemption is available only if the goods are not brought to any other place in India. Since exemption under Notification No. 24/2003 is not an unconditional exemption, we find that the appellant has a case for eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 8/2005 also even if it is assumed that the process does not amount to manufacture." 6. It is also submitted by the ld. counsel that for the subsequent period, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order in Appeal No. 63/2009 dated 13.10.2009 has set aside the demand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
