Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

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