Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Dept. Can’t Classify Product as Zarda Scented Tobacco After Repeatedly Approving It As Chewing Tobacco: CESTAT *  Mere Uploading Of GST Order On Portal Is Not “Valid” Service: Tripura HC *  CGST Can Proceed Even If SGST Closed Similar Case Earlier: Delhi HC *  SC upholds 28% GST on online gaming with retrospective effect. *  West Bengal Govt cuts E-way Bill Threshold limit to Rs. 50,000 for intra-state goods movement. *  Criminal Prosecution Under Central Excise Act Can’t Continue After CESTAT Sets Aside Duty Demand on Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Orders for Denial of Personal Hearing; Remands Matter Subject to 10% Deposit *  Ex Parte GST Order: Madras High Court Directs Immediate Removal of Bank/ITC Attachment Upon 25% Deposit *  J.K. Cement Receives GST Demand Order of Rs 8,02,113/- from Ahmedabad Tax Authority *  Delhi Police EOW Busts Alleged Rs. 128 Crore GST Fake Invoice Network. *  REPLY TO SCN CAN’T BE TREATED AS “EMPTY FORMALITY”: ORISSA HIGH COURT QUASHES GST DEMAND OF RS. 57.30 LAKH *  Challenge to CGST Provisions restricting ITC to Bonafide Purchasers : Allahabad HC issues notice *  CBIC Notifies Revised Customs Tariff Values for Edible Oils, Gold, Silver, Brass Scrap and Areca Nuts *  Delhi HC Orders Removal of GST Attachment After Statutory 1 Year Period Expired *  GSTAT Extends Relaxed Appeal Filing Guidelines till December 31, 2026 *  AO fails to Provide Import - Export Data from DGFT to Taxpayer for Reconciliation *  Gold, Silver Imports To Get Costlier As Govt Raises Customs Duty To 10%  *  GSTAT Enables Pre-Payment Access to Document Upload and Checklist for GST Appeal Filing *  GST Portal Restrictions Can’t Override Statute: Gujarat HC Allows Cross-State Transfer Of CGST ITC After Amalgamation *  Centre Revises HS Codes for Large Diameter Steel Pipes Used in Oil & Gas Pipelines *  Customs Duty Liability Arises On Warehouse Clearance Date: Supreme Court *  Government lifts export ban on de-oiled rice bran *  CESTAT Grants 12% Interest on Pre-Deposit for Investigation from Date of Deposit till Refund and Denies Interest on Interest. *  Government Overhauls GST Classification Framework for Non-Alcoholic Beverages; Fruit Juice Drinks, Milk-Based Beverages and Caffeinated Drinks to Attract Revised 5% and 40% GST Rates from May 1, 2026 *  India’s gross GST collections hit a record Rs 2.42 lakh crore in April, up 8.7% *  Customs clearance stalled, revenue hit over MRP dispute *  Shipping Corporation explores Middle East routes as Hormuz tensions disrupt cargo movement *  India, Kenya signs MoU for exchange of pre-arrival customs information *  No demand of Taxes under Reverse Charge if Tax Already Discharged by Service Provider under forward charge *  The India-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, signed "once-in-a-generation" deal that eliminates tariffs on 100% of Indian exports to New Zealand
Subject News *  Consignment Sales Can’t Be Reclassified as Inter-State Sales Based on Pre-Agreement Evidence: CESTAT *  Exporter Can’t Be Denied Advance Authorization Benefit Due To ICEGATE Technical Glitch: Delhi High Court *  No GST Demand For Mere Wrong Set-Off Of IGST Credit Under CGST And SGST Heads: Kerala HC. *  Cenvat Credit Can’t Be Denied on Input Services Having Nexus With Manufacturing Activities: CESTAT *  Pending Proceedings Can’t Survive Without Saving Clause: Calcutta High Court Quashes GST Demand of Rs. 6.28 Crore After Omission of Rule 96(10) *  Madras HC Quashes GST Demands on TASMAC (Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation) Bar Licence Fee *  GST Proceedings Cannot Survive Omitted Rule Without Saving Clause: Calcutta HC *  Provisional Release Can’t Be Denied Solely On Dept. Suspicion Of Misclassification And Undervaluation Of Imported Goods: CESTAT *  Businesses Should Not Be Kept Outside GST Regime Without Due Process: Gauhati High Court *  Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Reconsideration of Contractors’ Claim for Additional GST Payment After Tax Rate Hike From 12% to 18% *  S. 108 Statements Can’t Be Sole Basis Without Following Section 138B Procedure: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Frames Key Questions on Mandatory Distribution of ITC U/s 20 CGST Act *  Filing of Annexure-B for Refund Applications involving Accumulated ITC using the offline utility in GST portal: GSTN *  No Service Tax on Parent Company’s Un-Invoiced Cost Allocations Without Actual Service or Consideration: CESTAT  *  Calcutta High Court Upholds GST Classification of Polypropylene Leno Bags as Plastic Products *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  GSTAT Issues Major Bench Allocation Framework; All Appeals to First Go Before Division Bench *  ITC Blocking Without Reasoned Order Violates Rule 86A; Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Release of Credit *  Allahabad HC Refuses Bail to CGST Superintendent In Rs. 70 Lakh Bribery Case *  S.130 Can’t Be Invoked Without Prior Tax Determination U/s 73/74: Allahabad High Court Quashes GST Confiscation Proceedings *  SC grants Bail to Rs 54cr GST case  *  Karnataka HC Sets Aside Duplicate GST Orders, Orders Fresh Hearing on GSTIN Cancellation *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  Transfer Of Unutilized ITC After Amalgamation - Supreme Court Issues Notice *  PUNJAB & HARYANA HC QUASHES GST CANCELLATION NOTICE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE CBIC ENQUIRY REPORT *  LICENSE FEE, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CHARGES NOT INCLUDIBLE IN CUSTOMS VALUE UNLESS THEY ARE A CONDITION OF SALE: CESTAT *  DELHI HC ORDERS REMOVAL OF GST ATTACHMENT AFTER STATUTORY 1 YEAR PERIOD EXPIRED *  CUSTOMS BROKER CAN’T BE FAULTED JUST BECAUSE EXPORTER’S GST REGISTRATION WAS PREVIOUSLY CANCELLED: CESTAT   *  Supreme Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Delhi HC Ruling Holding Real Operator Behind Fake GST Firms Liable As ‘Taxable Person  *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected Merely Because DRC-07 Was Not Uploaded On Portal: Bombay High Court  

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