TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 1215X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nless the above conditions are satisfied, anything or everything cannot brought within the purview of exempted services. When the appellant claims right from the beginning that insofar as job work issue was concerned, the applicable duty/tax was paid by the principal manufacturer, no attempt was made to disprove the same by the revenue, they simply went on the premeditated misconception that the job work on which the appellant was not paying taxes, was an exempt service. This is without any basis which cannot be sustained. Scope of Rule 6 therefore is to be of limited applicability in such a scenario, as held by the Learned larger Bench of CESTAT in the case of STERLITE INDUSTRIES (I) LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE [ 2004 (12) TMI 108 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] , which order was later-on approved by the Hon ble Mumbai High Court, COMMISSIONER VERSUS STERLITE INDUSTRIES (I) LTD. [ 2008 (8) TMI 783 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] . This very decision has been followed in a number of cases by various benches and hence, this issue does not require any further deliberations. The demands raised are contrary to law and hence, the same are set aside, being unsustainable - appeal all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eclaration, the appellant did not charge any service tax on job work charges billed on such manufacturers in terms of Notification No.8 ibid or Sl.No.30 of Notification 25 ibid. Insofar as the other customers who are not manufacturers, the appellant is duly discharging service tax on job work charges billed on such customers under the category of Business Auxiliary Service. 4. I have heard Shri N. Anand, learned advocate for the appellant and Shri Rama Holla, learned Superintendent(AR) for the Revenue and have considered the rival contentions and have gone through the documents as well as various decisions/public orders relied upon during the course of arguments. Rule 2(e) of CCR defines exempted services as under: exempted services means taxable services which are exempt from the whole of the service tax leviable thereon, and includes services on which no service tax is leviable under section 66 of the Finance Act. 5. Admittedly, it is not the case of the Revenue that no tax/duty is paid. From the perusal of the impugned Order-in-Appeal as well as Order-in-Original do I find that the authorities below have not made any efforts to analyse the services provided by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CESTAT in the case of STERLITE INDUSTRIES (I) LTD. 2005 (183) ELT 353, which order was later-on approved by the Hon ble Mumbai High Court, in 2009 (244) ELT A89. This very decision has been followed in a number of cases by various benches and hence, I find that this issue does not require any further deliberations. 7. Further, Hon ble High Court of Judicature at Madras has also dealt with a more or less similar issue, in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Vs CESTAT Chennai, 2015(322) ELT wherein the Court has held as under: 2 . The brief facts of the case are as follows : During the periods in dispute, the assessee had manufactured machine forgings on job work basis and supplied the same to the principal manufacturers without payment of duty. The assessee were also manufacturing similar goods on their own and the same were cleared on payment of duty to independent buyers. In such duty payments, the assessee utilized Cenvat credit on capital goods and inputs which were used in the manufacture of the job-worked goods, which was objected to by the Department. Hence show cause notice was issued alleging that as the inputs have been used in the manufac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cise, Delhi. 3. Following the said decision, the questions raised in this appeal stand answered against the Revenue. 5 . Following the above-said decision of this Court, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed. 8. Hon ble Madras High Court in a later decision in the case of CCE Vs. Kyungshin Industrial Motherson ltd. [2016(332) ELT 69 (Mad.)] having considered a similar issue namely 9 . We find that in the present case, the manufacture of wiring harness is done at Unit-I. The inputs are sent by Unit-I to Unit-II, viz., the principal manufacturer to the respondent/assessee for manufacture semi-finished wiring harness and the job worked goods are cleared under delivery challans and not on payment of duty. The respondent/assessee is availing the exemption under Notification No. 214/86-C.E. for the job work done by the assessee. and, after considering the ratio of the Apex Court in Escorts case (supra) and also the decision of the learned Larger Bench of CESTAT in the case of Sterlite Industries Ltd. (supra), has held as under:- 14 . The above order of the Larg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
