TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 713X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hese appeals, is squarely covered by the decision by a Division Bench of this Tribunal in Anil Kumar vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Bhopal [ 2018 (8) TMI 253 - CESTAT NEW DELHI ] where it was held that we partly allow the appeal holding the impugned activity to be the one as that of manufacture. Benefit of Notification No.08/2005 of 1st March, 2005, is confirmed, however, denying the benefit of Notification No. 06/2005 dated 01.03.2005. The activity carried out by the appellant is that of manufacture . The benefit of Notification No. 08/2005 dated March 01, 2005, is confirmed but the benefit of Notification No. 06 of 2005 dated March 01, 2005 is denied - Appeal allowed in part. - SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 51964 O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ii) Whether the appellant is entitled to avail the benefits provided under Notification No. 08/2005-ST dated March 01, 2005 and 25/2012 (ST) dated June 20, 2012. 5. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the activity of production or processing of goods for and on behalf of the client is taxable under the category of BAS and since no new product emerges in the process, the activity would not amount to manufacture within the meaning of section 2(7) of Central Excise Act, 1944. Thus, service tax would be leviable on such service. The Commissioner (Appeals) also observed that Notification no. 08/2005 dated March 01, 2005 would be applicable only if on the resultant product, appropriate duty of central excise is payable. The finding in this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Division Bench in Anil Kumar observed as follows: 11. In view of entire above discussion, we are of the view that the activities of the appellants are the activities of manufacture. Resultantly, the findings of order under challenge holding the activities of the appellants to be the business auxiliary activities and confirming the demands in response thereof is held to be a wrong observation. The orders under challenge are set aside to that extent. 12. Now coming to another aspect of adjudication it is observed and held as: The exemption Notification No.6/2005 prescribes the exemption to taxable services upto the aggregate value of ₹ 8,00,000/- during the year 2007-08 and ₹ 10,00,000/- w.e.f. 1st April 2008 to the se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
