Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Manoj Kumar Yadav vs Patna on 13 February, 2026
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA
EASTERN ZONAL BENCH : KOLKATA
REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO.2
Service Tax Appeal No.75699 of 2018
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.117/Pat/S.Tax/Appeal/2017-18 dated 14.12.2017
passed by Commissioner(Appeals) of Customs, Central GST & Central Excise, Patna.)
Manoj Kumar Yadav
(Moh-Kemkha, Near-ITC Gate, P.O.-Basudeopur, Dist.Munger, Bihar.)
...Appellant
VERSUS
Commr., CGST & CX, Patna
.....Respondent
(C.R. Building, Bir Chand Patel Path, Patna, Bihar.) APPEARANCE Shri Bidyut Chakraborty, Advocate for the Appellant (s) Shri S.K.Jha, Authorized Representative for the Revenue CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI R. MURALIDHAR, MEMBER(JUDICIAL) FINAL ORDER NO. 75227/2026 DATE OF HEARING : 29.01.2026 DATE OF DECISION : 13.02.2026 R. MURALIDHAR :
The Appellant was carrying on job-work for ITC. On the ground that they were liable to pay Service Tax under the category of 'Business Auxiliary Service', a Show Cause Notice came to be issued on 13.10.2015 for the period 2010-11 to 2014-15. After due process, the demand was confirmed along with interest and penalty. Being aggrieved, the Appellant filed their Appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals), who has dismissed their Appeal. Being aggrieved, the Appellant is before the Tribunal.
2. The Ld.Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submits that the job-work undertaken by the Appellant in respect of Cigarrettes bundling, packing etc. is fully exempted on two counts. Firstly, if the same is taken as manufactured goods, the same is exempted in terms of Section 65(19) of the Finance Act. At the same time, if it is taken as 2 Service Tax Appeal No.75699 of 2018 a mere job-work, no Service Tax is payable since Excise Duty is being paid by the Principal at the time of clearance of the Cigarette. Thus in both the cases, no Service Tax is required to be paid by the Appellant. Hence, he prays that the Appeal may be allowed on merits.
3. He also submits that the Show Cause Notice issued on 13.10.2015 is partly time barred. All the activities of the appellants activities were known to the Department and the Appellant was also registered with the Service Tax Department. Therefore, the confirmed demand for the extended period should be set aside on account of time bar also.
4. The Ld.AR for the Department reiterates the findings of the lower authorities. He submits that the Appellant was providing job-work for which he was being paid job-work charges. This amounts to provision of service under the category of 'Business Auxiliary Service'. The Appellant deliberately did not pay any Service Tax on such considerations received by them. He justifies the confirmed demand.
5. Heard both sides and perused the appeal papers and the documents placed before me. It would be important to go through the provisions of Notification No.25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012. The relevant portion is reproduced below:-
"30. Carrying out an intermediate production process as job work in relation to -
(a) agriculture, printing or textile processing;
(b) cut and polished diamonds and gemstones; or plain and studded jewellery of gold and other precious metals, falling under Chapter 71 of the Central Excise Tariff Act ,1985 (5 of 1986);
(c) any goods on which appropriate duty is payable by the principal manufacturer; or
(d) processes of electroplating, zinc plating, anodizing, heat treatment, powder coating, painting including spray painting or auto black, during the course of manufacture of parts of cycles or sewing machines upto 3 Service Tax Appeal No.75699 of 2018 an aggregate value of taxable service of the specified processes of one hundred and fifty lakh rupees in a financial year subject to the condition that such aggregate value had not exceeded one hundred and fifty lakh rupees during the preceding financial year".
6. It would also be important to go through the negative list under Section 66D, which is reproduced below :-
"Section 66D (f) services by way of carrying out any process amounting to manufacture or production of goods excluding alcoholic liquor for human consumption"
7. From the above provisions, it can be seen that in terms of Sl.No.30(c) of Notification No.25/2012-ST when on account of any job-work is carried out on intermediate product, Excise Duty is paid by the Principal manufacturer on the finished goods, no Service Tax is required to be paid. Similarly, if the job-work results in a manufactured product, in terms of Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944, then the same is fully exempt from payment of Service Tax in terms of Section 66D(f) of the Finance Act, 1994. In the present case whatever may be the activity taken up by the Appellant, it is clear that the manufactured Cigarettes are being cleared by principal manufacturer ITC on payment of Excise Duty. Therefore, I do not see any merits in the confirmed demand. Accordingly, I set aside the same and allow the Appeal on merits.
8. I also find that the Department has failed to bring in any concrete evidence to the effect that the Appellant has indulged in any activity amounting to suppression. In view of the exemption Notification and the Negative List, they can said to have entertained bonafide belief that no Service Tax is required to be 4 Service Tax Appeal No.75699 of 2018 paid by them. Therefore, I hold that invocation of extended period provisions in this case is legally not sustainable. Accordingly, I set aside the confirmed demand in respect of the extended period on account of time bar also.
9. The Appeal stands allowed thus. The Appellant would be eligible for consequential relief, if any, as per law.
(Order pronounced in the open court on 13.02.2026.) Sd/ (R. MURALIDHAR) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) sm