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/2015-16/2719

Whether packaging of fertilisers leviable to service tax if it forms integral part of manufacturing?

Case:-NEW ERA HANDLING AGENCY VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF S. TAX, PANAJI-GOA
 
Citation:- 2015 (37) S.T.R. 344 (Tri. - Mumbai)


Brief Facts:-The appellant M/s. New Era Handling Agency (NEHA), Goa is engaged in providing packaging activity services in relation to fertilizer manufactured by M/s. Zuari Industries Ltd., Goa, for which they are receiving certain consideration. The department was of the view that the activity undertaken by the appellant would come under the category of packaging services as defined in Section 65(76b) of the Finance Act, 1994 and, therefore, they are liable to pay Service Tax. Accordingly, show cause notice was issued demanding the Service Tax for the period 16-6-2005 to 31-3-2010. The show cause notice was adjudicated and demand was confirmed along with interest and equal amount of penalty was also imposed and penalty of Rs. 5,000/-. Aggrieved from the said order, the appellant is before Tribunal.
 
Appellants Contention:-Shri Naresh Thacker, the ld Counsel for the appellant appeared before us and submits that as per Essential Commodities Act read with Fertilizer Control Order 1985 (FCO), which governs the transaction relating to manufacture, sale and distribution of fertilizers and as per Clause 19 of the said FCO, there are restrictions on manufacture, sale and distribution of fertilizers which read as follows. “No person shall himself or by any other person on his behalf sell, offer for sale, stock or exhibit for sale or distribute (a) any fertilizer the container whereof is not packed and marked in the manner laid down in this order; (b) any fertilizer the label or container where bears the name of any individual firm or company purporting to be manufacturer of the fertilizer, which individual, firm or company is fictitious or does not exist”. Further as per Clause 21. “Every manufacturer and pool handling agency shall in regard to packing and marking of containers of fertilizers comply with the following requirements”.
Therefore, the packing of fertilizer is a statutory activity under the Fertilizer Control Order without which the fertilizer cannot be marketed. He further submits that as per Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 defines “manufacture” to include any process, incidental or ancillary to the completion of a manufactured product. In these terms, manufacture of fertilizer is complete only when the packaging is done. He further submits that the packaging activity has defined in Section 65(76b) of the Finance Act, 1994, excludes the packaging of fertilizer since the said section excludes any activity which amounts to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1994. He also relies on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Maa Sharda Wine Tradersv. Union of Indiareported in 2009 (15)S.T.R.3 (M.P.). Therefore, he prayed that as without packaging fertilizer cannot be marketed and therefore packaging is integrally connected with the completion of the manufacturing process and hence, the said activity squarely falls under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, He further submits that M/s. Zuari Industries Ltd. have discharged the Central Excise duty by adding the packaging charges in their assessable value. In these terms, he submits that their activity does not fall under the packaging activity as per Section 65 (76b) of the Finance Act, 1994. Therefore, impugned order is required to be set aside.
 
Respondents Contention:-On the other hand ld. AR submits that manufacture of fertilizer is complete even: before it is packed and even after packaging, fertilizer remains fertilizer and therefore, process of packaging undertaken does not come under the definition of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. As the process undertaken by the appellant is not a process incidental or ancillary to complete the manufactured product as the fertilizer is already completed. He further submit that for bulk sale of fertilizer, no packaging is required. In these terms, the appeal is required to be dismissed.

Reasoning Of Judgement:-Heard both sides and considered the submissions in detail. As per Essential Commodity Act 1955, read with Fertilizer Control Act Order 1985, tribunal find that it is cleared that fertilizer cannot be marketed without packaging in the manner specified under the said order, thus packaging of fertilizer is a statutory requirement for sale of the fertilizer. The tribunal further find that sale of fertilizer in bulk requires a license to sell in bulk. As the appellant is not having any such license, therefore packaging is a statutory requirement for sale of fertilizer by M/s. Zuari Industries Ltd. If marketing of fertilizer cannot take place without packaging, the appellant is a manufacturer as per Section 2(f)(i) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, wherein manufacture includes any process incidental or ancillary to the completion of a manufactured final product. In other terms, the completion of fertilizer manufacture product occurs when packaging is done and without packaging, the fertilizer cannot be marketed. Therefore, tribunal do agree with the contention of the ld. Counsel for the appellant that activity of packaging undertaken by them in respect of fertilizer would form an integral part of manufacturing activity and cannot be said to be a service activity, especially, in the context of packaging activity as defined in Section 65(76b) which excludes from its scope, any activity of manufacture as defined in Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Therefore, tribunal hold that appellant being a manufacturer is doing the packaging activity and does not fall under packaging activity defined in Section 65(76b) of the Finance Act, 1994. With these terms, tribunal set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief if any.
 
Decision:- Appeal allowed.

Comment:- The crux of the case is that the Packaging activity as defined in Sec 65(76b) of  Finance Act, 1994, excludes any activity amounting to manufacture u/s 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1994.In the given case as the Packaging activity is essential for marketing of fertilizers, therefore it is an activity incidental or ancillary to the completion of a manufactured final product and it would form an integral part of manufacturing activity and not of service activity. Therefore, no service tax is payable on the packaging activity.

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