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/2015-16/2719

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