Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Odyssey Organics P. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Raigad on 15 September, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
Appeal No.
ST/575/12
(Arising out Order-in-Original No. US/281/RGD/2012 dated 27.04.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai)
For approval and signature:
Honble Shri M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial)
Honble Shri Raju, Member (Technical)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see No
the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the No CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy Seen
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental Yes
authorities?
M/s. Odyssey Organics P. Ltd.
Appellant
Vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad
Respondent
Appearance:
Shri Prasad Paranjape, Advocate for the appellant Shri B. Kumar Iyer, Supdt.(AR) for the respondent CORAM:
Honble Shri M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Shri Raju, Member (Technical) Date of hearing : 15-09-2016 Date of decision : 15-09-2016 O R D E R No: ..
Per: M.V. Ravindran This appeal is directed against Order-in-Original No. US/281/RGD/2012 dated 27.04.2012.
2. Heard both sides and perused the records.
3. On consideration of the submissions made by both sides we find that the issue in this appeal is regarding the demand of service tax from the appellant under the category of business auxiliary services for the period 2006 07. Both the lower authorities have held that the activity of the appellant in processing disposable waste water received from Apte Organic Pvt. Ltd and releasing the same through common drainage into common effluent treatment plant will amount to services rendered to a client for processing of goods.
4. It is undisputed that the appellant is treating the industrial waste which is a waste for the said Apte Organics. Appellant gets industrial waste from Apte Organics and treats the same before releasing the treated water into effluent treatment plant. We find that reliance placed by the Counsel for appellant on the CBEC letter no. 137/111/2007 CX4 dated 13 July 2007 is correct and applicable in this case. In the said circular/letter CBEC had clarified that incineration/shredding of biomedical waste cannot be called as processing of goods and the said activity does not qualify as processing of goods on behalf of the client. In the case in hand, the same analogy will apply inasmuch appellant is treating waste received from Apte Organics for which they get paid. We find strong force in the submissions made by the learned Counsel that the ratio of the Tribunals following decisions will apply in the case in hand :
a) Bharuch Enviro Infrastructure Ltd. 2008 (12) STR 622
b) Globe Enviro Care Ltd. 2011 (21) STR 241
c) Ferro Scrap Nigam Ltd. 2014 (36) STR 955
5. It is also to be noted and is a common knowledge that disposal of waste water in the common effluent treatment plant of Maharashtra pollution control board, needs to adhere specifications acceptable for such disposal, which are achieved by the treatment undertaken by the appellant. We notice that treatment of effluent waste cannot be considered as processing of the goods by any stretch of imagination, and we also note that the show cause notice does not invoke specific clause of the definition of Business Auxiliary Services for levy of tax.
6. In view of the foregoing, we hold that the impugned order is unsustainable and liable to be set aside and we do so. Impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed.
(Operative part pronounced in Court) (Raju) Member (Technical) (M.V. Ravindran) Member (Judicial) //SR
- 4 -
ST/575/12