9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 781X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They are also holding certificate of registration form ST-2 for services (i) Goods Transport Operator and (ii) Business Auxiliary Services under section 69 of Finance Act, 1994. During the course of audit of appellant it was noticed by audit party that they had provided their plant A, B & D for exclusive use for the manufacture of goods on the input and packing material supplied by M/s. Gharda Chemicals Ltd (GCL) & had recovered an amount of Rs 10,91,88,495/- during the period from June 2005 - March 2006 (400 Lacs being the charges for Plant A/D & Plant B, + Rs. 692 Lacs towards reimbursement of expenses being the fixed expenses for plant A, B & D & + Rs. 418 Lacs being the revenue expenses incurred for p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for and on behalf of GCL. It is his submission that the said activity was undertaken under the provision of Rule 4 (5) (a) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Accordingly, the activity clearly of manufacture cannot be construed as service for charging service tax. Even if by stretch of imagination the activity if classified the same will fall under Business Auxiliary Service under sub head of 'Production or Processing on behalf of the client'. In such case, demand under Management, Maintenance or Repair service cannot be confirmed. The activity of production or processing under business auxiliary service is exempted under notification no. 8/2005- ST dated 01.03.2005 as in this case the recipient of job work goods is liable to pay excise duty. Fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g to the service recipient and not to the service provider. In the present case the order impugned has held the appellant as service provider and Gharda Chemicals Ltd as service recipient. It is also not disputed that it is the service recipient M/s GCL is paying for the use of manufacturing facilities of the appellant for manufacture of the excisable goods of M/s Gharda chemicals. In this fact the appellant using their own plant machinery equipment that too for production of excisable goods on behalf of M/s Gharda chemical Ltd. In this undisputed fact by any stretch the activities of the appellant cannot be classified under Management, Maintenance & Repair Service. Moreover, the activity per se cannot be treated as service itself for the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xclusively for production of goods of GCL. Therefore, the service is classified under Management, Maintenance & Repair Service. As we already observed above that since the plant machinery equipment used for the purpose of production belongs to the appellant, the service is not classified under Management, Maintenance & Repair Service. Further, the activities carried out by the appellant are undoubtedly production of goods on job work basis on behalf of GCL. This position will not alter irrespective of fact that whether the plant, machinery &equipment are used exclusively for GCL or partly for GCL or partly for others, therefore, on this basis the activity cannot be classified as Management, Maintenance & Repair Service. 4.3 We further find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
