2026-VIL-368-CESTAT-KOL-ST
  1. Home
  2. 2026-VIL-368-CESTAT-KOL-ST

SERVICE TAX CESTAT Cases

Service Tax - Taxability of job work services involving job work/fabrication for the manufacture of excisable goods - The appellant was engaged in providing different services to the service recipient against different work orders - The work order involved job work/fabrication as per the designs and on the materials supplied by M/s. Exide Industries Ltd - Whether the services provided by the appellant under the second type of work order, involving job work/fabrication for the manufacture of excisable goods, are taxable under service tax - HELD - The labourers were engaged directly in the process of manufacture of battery by M/s. Exide Industries Ltd., and the consideration was fixed on the basis of work accomplished by counting in 'piece'. Such services were provided by way of carrying out job work/fabrication for the manufacture of excisable goods in the premises of M/s. Exide Industries Limited. As the activity undertaken by the appellant resulted in the 'manufacture' of excisable goods, on which M/s. Exide Industries Limited had discharged the appropriate duty, such services are exempted from the payment of service tax under Sl. No. 30(c) of Notification No. 25/2012-S.T. dated 20.06.2012 - Demand of service tax confirmed in the impugned order on the services rendered by the appellant under the second type of work order, involving job work/fabrication for the manufacture of excisable goods - Since the impugned demand against the appellant cannot be sustained, the question of demanding interest or imposing penalty thereon under Section 78 of the Act does not arise – The appeal is allowed - Invocation of extended period of limitation - The impugned demand was raised solely on the basis of the difference found between the Income Tax Return (ITR) and Service Tax Return (ST-3) filed by the appellant - Whether the invocation of the extended period of limitation is justified in the facts and circumstances of the case - HELD - The appellant was regular in filing their ST-3 Returns and the impugned demand was raised solely on the basis of the difference found between the ITR and ST-3 filed by them. As the appellant had not suppressed any material fact from the Department, the intent to evade payment of service tax has not been established in this case. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the ingredients for invoking the extended period of limitation are not satisfied in this case. Accordingly, the confirmation of the demand by invoking the extended period of limitation is not sustainable - The Tribunal set aside the confirmation of the demand by invoking the extended period of limitation.
Download File

Quick Search

/

Advance Search

GST Resources

/

Gst Rate Finder

Tax Vista

Your Weekly Tax Recap

By Kasi Viswanathan V

Weekly Summary

VIL Video

Analysis of Union Budget 2026-27:
By CA Vivek Jalan

Create Account

Security-Code
New Code?

Log In

New User ? Forgot Password ?

Forgot Password

Security-Code
New Code?
Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page

Feedback this page

Schedule a Demo

Schedule a demo to know the features and advantages of VILGST portal. Get to know the tips to find the desired results in faster way.

Caselaw Request Form (CRF)

Didn’t find what you are searching for? No worries, please give us the following details and VIL will email you the desired Caselaws at the earliest:

Security-Code
New Code?