9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 348X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. Swetha R.S., Advocate for the Appellant Shri Anoop Singh, Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER Per : Shri P. Dinesha In the present appeal, the Assessee/Appellant is questioning the denial of exemption benefit and demanding the consequential service tax. 2. Heard Ms. Swetha R.S., Ld. Advocate for the Appellant and Shri Anoop Singh, Ld. Joint Commissioner for the Revenue, we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng Authority, the activity of the appellant did not amount to 'manufacture' in terms of Section 2(f) ibid. 4. From the records placed before us, we find that Appellant has inter alia furnished before the Adjudicating Authority permissions letters to send the materials for job work since, admittedly, the principals were SEZ units. Strangely, however, the Adjudicating Authority has not at all given ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the said components that underwent the process of job work in the manufacture of final products which attract appropriate duty. From the pleadings taken out by the appellant even before the Original Authority, the appellant had only claimed the benefit of Notification No.8/2005 (supra) but, strangely the Adjudicating Authority has examined the above claim of the Appellant in the context of Noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellate proceedings and it is also are in violation of the well settled principles of natural justice. 6. We therefore hold that the job worker / Appellant is entitled to the benefit of exemption Notification No.8/2005 (supra) and that the activity of the Appellant was not taxable under BAS. In this regard, we find that our view stands supported by the decisions / orders of various higher judici ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
