Case Law Details
M/s. Narain Packaging Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax (CESTAT Delhi)
Admittedly, the packaging is subsequent to manufacture of paper by M/s. J K Paper Ltd. The appellants claim that they have contributed to the incidental activity of manufacture. We note that the appellants are engaged in packing activity in the premises of clients. The cut size paper manufactured by M/s. J K Paper were given to the appellant direct and using their packing machine the appellant undertakes the wrapping, packing in box, strapping and returns the completed goods back to client. These operations are inside the manufacturing premises of the client.
6. The Tribunal had earlier examined the scope of tax liability under packaging service. In MAA Sharda Wine Traders (supra) and Kedia Castle Delleon Industries Ltd. (supra), the Tribunal held bottling of liquor is incidental activity of manufacture, excluded from “packaging activity” as defined under section 65 (76b) of Finance Act, 1994. Examining the facts of the present case, we find that the activities undertaken by the appellant in the manufacturing premises of client are excluded from service tax liabilities.
FULL TEXT OF CESTAT ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS\
The present appeal is filed against the Order-in-Original No. 124/ST/D-I I/2012 dated 28.5.2012.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
