TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1229X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty. As can be seen from the scope of work, the respondent only did some processing of the goods and had not produced any goods. There is no infirmity in the findings of the lower authorities that the services were not exigible to service tax during the relevant period. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Appeal No. ST/505/2011 - FINAL ORDER No. A/30124/2019 - Dated:- 18-1-2019 - Mr. M. V. Ravindran, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And Mr. P. Venkata Subba Rao, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) For The Appellant : Shri C. Mallikarjun Reddy, Superintendent/AR For The Respondent : Shri J. Rama Muni Reddy, Dy. Manager ORDER [ Order per: P.V. Subba Rao.] ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore, prior to 16.06.2005, they were not liable to pay service tax under the head of business auxiliary services. Both revenue and the assessee filed the appeals before the first appellate authority who allowed the appeal of the assessee and rejected the department s appeal holding that prior to 16.06.2005 the demands were not sustainable at all because the goods in question were processed for their clients and not on behalf of them. He also found that even in respect of invoices issued post 16.06.2005 the job work was undertaken prior to this date and therefore, the demands are not sustainable. Thus holding, the first appellate authority dropped the entire demand. Hence, this appeal by the revenue. The scope of the job work undertaken by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to 16.06.2005 included production of goods on behalf of the clients . This definition has been revised and it became production or processing of goods for, or on behalf of the clients on 16.06.2005. In the instant case all the services were rendered for the client and not on behalf of them to some other party. Further, as can be seen from the scope of work listed in Para 2 above, the respondent only did some processing of the goods and had not produced any goods. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the findings of the lower authorities that the services were not exigible to service tax during the relevant period. In view of the above, we find that there is no infirmity in the impugned order and the appeal is liable to be rejected and we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
