Case Law Details
Rajit Jain-succeesor And Legal Heir Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Allahabad)
1. The appellant is in appeal.
2. Brief facts of the case are that appellants are engaged in re-rubberisation of old, worn out rubberised rollers of various industries. The customers send them their used rollers at random and re-rubberisation comprises removing the old rubber from spindle and replacing it with the fresh rubber compound coating. Intelligence was received by officers of DGCEI that the appellants did not discharge the Service Tax liability on re-rubberisation of rollers provided by them to various customers/clients. The investigations were taken by the officers of DGCEI. During the course of investigation various records/documents maintained by the appellants were examined by the officers of DGCEI and statements of various employees/Directors of the appellants were recorded to ascertain the facts whether re-rubberisation undertaken by the appellants on behalf of their customers was classifiable under the category of ‘Management, Maintenance or Repair’ Services or under the category of ‘Business Auxiliary Services’ as defined under the Finance Act as defined as under.
Section 65 “[(19) ‘Business Auxiliary Service’ means any service in relation to –
(i) Promotion or marketing or sale of goods produced or provided by or belonging to the client; or
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
