ALKYL AMINES CHEMICALS LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., PUNE-III
LAWS(CE)-2015-3-105
CUSTOMS EXCISE AND GOLD(CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on March 12,2015

Alkyl Amines Chemicals Ltd. Appellant
VERSUS
Commissioner Of C. Ex., Pune -Iii Respondents

JUDGEMENT

M.V.RAVINDRAN,MEMBER (J) - (1.)This appeal is directed against Order -in -Appeal No. PIII/VM/64/2010, dated 29 -3 -2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune -III. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are the appellants herein are registered with the Central Excise Department for manufacture of excisable goods falling under Chapter 29 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On scrutiny of the records, departmental officers noticed that during the period 10 -9 -2004 to 28 -2 -2005 appellant had received some amount towards job work charges and processing charges. It revealed that the appellant carried out job work on the goods supplied by the client and the same were returned back to the client after processing, without payment of any duty being job work carried out by the appellant for which appellant received an amount as a consideration. The Revenue's contention is that the said amount is a consideration on which Service Tax liability arises under the category of 'Business Auxiliary Services' in terms of Sec. 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994.
(2.)Show cause notice was issued for demand of Service Tax liability, interest thereof and proposing to impose penalties. The appellant contested the show cause notice on merits, taking a plea that the goods manufactured by them under job work is amounting to manufacture hence Service Tax liability will not arise. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the contention and confirmed the demands with interest and imposed penalties. Appeal filed by the appellant with the first appellate authority also met with the same fate.
(3.)Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would draw our attention to the process of converting 'Para Nitro Cumene' into 'Para Cumidine' amounts to manufacture within the meaning of Sec. 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. He would submit that the resultant product 'Para Cumidine' is different from the input product 'Para Nitro Cumene'. He also argued that the product 'Para Cumidine' is used by the principal manufacturer in the manufacture of finished goods in their factory. Learned Counsel would take us through the job work challan issued by the principal manufacturer, which is as per the provisions of Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. He would submit that the findings recorded by the lower authorities as to the activity undertaken by the appellant does not amount to the manufacture is incorrect and the confirmation of Service Tax liability on the appellant is totally baseless. He would take us to the definition of 'Business Auxiliary Services' and submit that the said definition clearly excludes any activity that amounts to manufacture within the provisions of Sec. 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. He would also take us through the chemical formula of the inputs as well as the finished goods. It is his submission that the impugned order be set aside.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.