Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Service tax penalty can’t survive when assessee acted on dept.’s own view of non-taxability: Delhi High Court. *  GST section 74 extended limitation questionable when form 26AS mismatch was already known: Karnataka High Court grants interim relief. *  CGST demand prima facie impermissible after state GST settlement under section 128A: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court asks GSTAT to sympathetically consider delay as taxpayers pursued remedy before wrong forum. *  Supreme Court stays Tripura High Court ruling protecting genuine buyers from ITC denial over supplier’s GST default. *  Diary entries alone can’t prove clandestine removal of goods: CESTAT quashes excise penalty on steel trader. *  Customs could investigate preferential tariff claims even before sec. 28DA: Delhi High Court. *  Customs dept. relied on fake AI generated case laws: supreme court quashes Rs. 425.28 crore penalty. *  No GST exemption in affiliation and annual registration charges for admission or conduct Of examinations: GSTAT. *  Mere invoices, cheque payments insufficient to establish genuine movement of goods: GSTAT restores Rs. 43.44 lakh ITC demand. *  Consolidated GST show cause notice covering multiple financial years is not without jurisdiction: Delhi High Court. *  Construction of independent houses on separate plots not taxable as ‘Residential Complex’ without common facilities: CESTAT. *  GST penalty exceeding statutory maximum unsustainable; Allahabad High Court quashes ? 50,000/- penalty after taxpayer filed return and paid late fee. *  GST order against standard chartered bank passed without hearing set aside by Bombay High Court. *  Retracted statements can’t be relied upon without cross-examination: CESTAT quashes gold confiscation. *  Burden to prove misclassification lies on customs department: CESTAT. *  CESTAT quashes Rs. 98 lakh excise demand on clearance of used refractory brick scrap. *  Service tax demand on irrigation works quashed: Karnataka High Court rules sale of goods component not taxable as service. *  GSTAT restores tax and penalty for transporting iron scrap without E-way bill citing intent to evade tax. *  Madras High Court stays GST recovery from directors without opportunity to show cause under section 89. *  Madras high court stays GST recovery notice against directors; finds prima facie case on applicability of section 79(1)(c). *  Procedural lapses can’t justify harsh punishment without serious customs breach: CESTAT quashes customs broker licence revocation. *  Service tax payable on land leasing and sports complex charges: CESTAT. *  Settled customs dispute can’t be reopened through Article 226 challenge to interest liability: Delhi High Court. *  Mere facilitation of customs clearance can’t establish knowledge of smuggling: Madras High Court. *  GST registration cancellation stayed: Allahabad High Court questions 99% ITC utilisation cap under rule 86B. *  Composition scheme lapses automatically on crossing Rs. 1.5 crore turnover: GSTAT. *  Gujarat High Court quashes GST cancellation orders after officer relied on non-existent AI-generated case laws. *  Importers liable for customs duty benefits availed through manipulated scrips: Delhi High Court. *  Procedural E-way bill lapse alone can’t justify penalty where genuine transaction and absence of tax evasion are established: GSTAT.
Subject News *  Documentary evidence dominates probe, further custody unwarranted: mumbai court grants bail in Rs. 22.44 crore customs duty evasion case. *  Business premises can’t remain sealed for non-participation in GST search: Allahabad High Court. *  GST pre-deposit must be refunded proportionately when taxpayer partly succeeds in appeal: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court grants 30 days to file GST appeal; keeps pre-deposit issue open due to deposit in parallel CGST proceedings. *  GST demand can’t exceed amount proposed in SCN: Allahabad High Court quashes Rs. 20.47 Crore order. *  Hundreds-of-crores GST demand and heavy 10% pre-deposit no ground to bypass statutory appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Delhi High Court refuses to entertain challenge to gold confiscation due to statutory appeal remedy and unexplained delay. *  Procedural error in customs broker licence inquiry can be rectified through remand: Delhi High Court. *  GSTR-2A mismatch alone can’t justify ITC denial without invoice-wise verification; personal hearing mandatory: GSTAT. *  GST order passed without uploading personal hearing notices violates sec. 75(4): Allahabad High Court. *  TAX EVASION - Sec. 74 GST SCN quashed for not spelling out fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression: Allahabad High Court. *  STPI’s SOFTEX certification and NoC charges taxable as business support services: CESTAT. *  Suspicion can’t replace proof: CESTAT quashes penalty in alleged gold-smuggling operation. *   Limitation runs from communication of order: Madras High Court upholds rejection of delayed GST Appeals. *  Rajasthan High Court quashes GST demand over unsigned show cause notice. *  ITC recovery upheld where supplier failed to deposit GST: Rajasthan High Court. *  Customs commissioner’s empowered to make port trust liable for duty on pilfered goods: Supreme Court. *  Rectification proceedings can’t be used to challenge an uncontested GST assessment through a writ petition: Andhra Pradesh HC. *  GST proceedings against deceased proprietor unsustainable without notice to legal heir: GSTAT. *  Mere availment of ineligible self-assessed ITC doesn’t amount to suppression without evidence of fraud or wilful misstatement: GSTAT. *  Disposal of mining overburden by entity authorised by mining lease holder constitutes taxable service: CESTAT. *  Toll plaza data not mandatory for ITC refund: GSTAT. *  Disputed GST fraud allegations require investigation: Punjab and Haryana High Court makes interim bail absolute in alleged fraud and GST fraud case. *  Non-manufacturer contractor liable to deposit excess excise duty collected from buyer: CESTAT. *  GST order can’t reject taxpayer’s reply as “not satisfactory” without reasons: Madhya Pradesh High Court. *  Uncorroborated statements can’t establish alleged diversion of duty-free goods: CESTAT. *  Erection services were not liable to service tax prior to 10th september 2004: CESTAT. *  Sec. 74 GST notice must spell out statutory ingredients for invoking extended tax demand proceedings: Allahabad High Court. *  No jurisdictional bar under section 6(2)(b) in parallel CGST SGST proceedings: Delhi High Court refuses to bypass GST appeal remedy. *  Madras High Court remits GST demand for fresh adjudication after taxpayer claims it was unaware of SCN following business closure.  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/CASE-LAW/2015-16/2751

Whether conversion of wheat into maida, atta, suji etc. on job work leviable to service tax under BAS?

Case:-JAYAKRISHNA FLOUR MILLS (P) LTD. VERSUS COMMR. OF C. EX., MADURAI

Citation:- 2015 (37) S.T.R. 1079 (Tri. - Chennai)

Brief Facts:- The facts in the case are that the appellants are engaged in the process of grinding of wheat into wheat products such as maida, atta, suji and bran for various parties. There is a demand of Service Tax under the category of Business Auxiliary Service.

Appellants Contention:-The appellant contended that the conversion of wheat into wheat products involves several process, such as cleaning of impurities, grinding, milling, etc. by machines and labour. It is also contended that the process amounts to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Respondents  Contention:-The learned AR for Revenue sought time for verification of the Board’s letter. Today, the learned AR placed the letter dated 16-7-2014 of the Joint Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai. The relevant portion of the letter is reproduced below :-
“3.Subsequently, the issue was taken up for clarification with the Board by the Chief Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore, who had opined that the process of grinding of wheat into wheat products would amount to manufacture, and hence no Service Tax levy would arise. Board vide their letter F. No. 11/01/2012-CX.1, dated 18-7-2013 had confirmed the view of the Chief Commissioner’s Office Member (Service Tax) also concurred with the above view as communicated vide Boards reference in F. No. 137/154/2012-Service Tax, dated 19-6-2013 (mentioned). Copies of the Board’s instructions on the above issue was communicated by the Chief Commissioner’s Office Vide Ref. C. No. IV/16/305/2011-S.Tax (CCO), dated 4-9-2013 (copy certified and enclosed). It was also directed that pending SCNs/Investigations to be decided accordingly and for informing the field formations. No further communications have been received in this regard.
4.Similar demand in the case of M/s. Naga Ltd. Dindigul on an identical issue was confirmed by the Commissioner in his O/O No. 4/2011, dated 25-11-2011. On appeal by M/s. Naga Ltd. against the Commissioner’s O/O No. 4/2011, dated 25-11-2011, Hon’ble CESTAT, SZB, Chennai after taking cognizance of the Board’s clarification on this issue has granted stay vide Misc. Order No. 42592/2013, dated 5-11-2013. Another O-in-O passed by the Commissioner vide O-in-O No. 52/2012-S.T., dated 11-11-2012 in the case of M/s. Rajaram Flour Mills, confirming the demand of Service Tax of Rs. 71,28,671/- with equal penalty and interest is also pending with the Hon’ble CESTAT, SZB, Chennai and a stay order vide Misc. Order No. 40899/2014, dated 12-6-2014 has been granted.
5.On an identical issue pertaining to M/s. Naga Ltd. Dindigul, Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai confirmed the demand of Rs. 48,58,299/- along with interest and penalty vide Order-in-Original No. MAD-CEX-OOO-ADC 8-12, dated 27-4-2012. On appeal by the assessee, Commissioner (Appeals), Madurai allowed the appeal setting aside the entire demand vide Order-in-Appeal No. MAD-CEX-000-APP-086-13, dated 26-8-2013. The said O-in-A was accepted by the Committee of Commissioners on 6-11-2013, following the principle laid down by the Board, as communicated by the Chief Commissioner’s Office. Another Order-in-Original No. MAD-CEX-000-JTC-003-14/2014, dated 24-2-2014 passed by the Joint Commissioner, Madurai on an identical issue, dropping the demand of Service Tax under BAS, has also been accepted in review in consonance with the Board’s instructions.”
 
Reasoning Of Judgement-After hearing both sides and on perusal of the records, the tribunal find that the appellants are engaged in the process of grinding of wheat into wheat products such as maida, atta, suji and bran for various parties. There is a demand of Service Tax under the category of Business Auxiliary Service. The dispute relates to whether the process amounts to manufacture. The appellant contended that the conversion of wheat into wheat products involves several process, such as cleaning of impurities, grinding, milling, etc. by machines and labour. It is also contended that the process amounts to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The adjudicating authority held that the activity carried out by the appellant will not amount to manufacture and Service Tax is leviable. We find that CBEC vide their letter F. No. 11/01/2012-CX.1, dated 9-7-2013 clarified as under :-
“CX wing has received a representation dated 11-7-2012 from the Tamil Nadu Roller Flour Mills Association, Chennai requesting the Board to clarify a situation arising out of an Order-in-Original passed by Commissioner Central Excise, Madurai confirming the demand of Service Tax under Business Auxiliary Service on a job-worker engaged in the activity of milling of wheat into wheat products like Flour, Suji, Maida, etc. on the ground that such an activity does not amount to ‘manufacture’ and hence chargeable to Service Tax. A copy of the representation is enclosed, the contents of which are self-explanatory.
2.Comments on the representation had been called from CCE, Coimbatore, who has informed that a representation dated 26-12-2011 of Tamil Nadu Chamber of Commerce and Industry on this subject had been received earlier from Service Tax wing of CBEC Vide F. No. 137/08/2012-Service Tax and he had sent his comments to ST wing in March, 2012. A copy of the comments sent earlier to ST wing was enclosed. In his comments, CCE, Coimbatore has taken a view that the activity of conversion of wheat into flour, maida, suji etc. amounts to manufacture and hence not chargeable to Service Tax. He has also stated that even otherwise Service Tax was not chargeable in the instant case as the activity was with reference to agriculture produce. A copy of the comments of CCE, Coimbatore sent earlier to ST wing is enclosed for ready reference.
3.CX wing is in agreement with views of CCE, Coimbatore that conversion of wheat into products like Flour, Maida, Suji, etc. amounts to manufacture as a new commodity with distinct name, character and use emerges from the activity of milling of wheat. In fact, Central Excise duty was imposed on Maida in 1971 which was subsequently withdrawn. At present wheat flour finds a specific mention in Central Excise Tariff under Chapter 11 and carried a NIL rate of duty.”
The tribunal find that the Board has already accepted this issue that the process would amount to manufacture and no Service Tax is leviable. Therefore, tribunal set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief, if any. The early application is disposed of.
 
Decision:- Appeal allowed.

Comment:- The crux in the case is that the conversion of wheat into wheat products like Flour, Maida, Suji, etc. amounts to manufacture u/s 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as a new commodity with distinct name, character and use emerges from that conversion and therefore no service tax is leviable on such conversion. The demand of service tax for the conversion of wheat into wheat products under Business Auxiliary Services is not sustainable.

Prepared By:- Neelam Jain
 
 
 
 

Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com