2015 (10) TMI 779 - AT - Service Tax

Job work - whether manufacturing of medicines containing alcohol amounts to manufacture and liable for service tax under business auxiliary services or not Appellant contested that medicines manufactured containing alcohol undoubtedly arise out of manufacturing process Revenue contented that exemption from payment of service tax under business auxiliary services can be claimed only when excisable goods are manufactured. Held That - Appellant is manufacturer of medicines which contains alcohol which amounts to manufacture and exemption from service tax is available to a job worker in such case - Basic thrust of the Revenue that activity of manufacturing is not there, is on wrong footing and products manufactured by the Appellant are chargeable to Excise duty - Impugned order is unsustainable Appeal is allowed - Decision made in the cases of Rubicon formulations Pvt. Ltd., Vs. C.C., C.E. S.T., Aurangabad 2009 (11) TMI 356 - CESTAT, MUMBAI and Midas Care Pharmaceuticals Vs. Commr. Of C. Ex. Aurangabad 2010 (1) TMI 247 - CESTAT, MUMBAI followed - Decided in favour of the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether manufacturing of medicines containing alcohol amounts to manufacture for the purpose of service tax liability under Business Auxiliary Service (BAS).
2. Interpretation of the exemption from service tax for job workers involved in manufacturing excisable goods.
3. Correct application of legal provisions and precedents in determining service tax liability for manufacturing medicines containing alcohol.

Issue 1:
The appeal questioned whether manufacturing medicines containing alcohol constitutes "manufacture" for service tax liability under Business Auxiliary Service (BAS). The appellant, a pharmaceutical manufacturer, entered an agreement for manufacturing "Bayer Tonic II," an alcoholic preparation not excisable under the Central Excise Tariff Act. The appellant was issued a show cause notice for service tax on the consideration received. The lower authorities upheld the tax demand, interest, and penalties. The appellant argued that medicines containing alcohol are manufactured items, citing relevant legal provisions and precedents. The Tribunal noted that the products were chargeable to Excise duty and held that the lower authorities' interpretation was incorrect. The Tribunal referred to settled case law and previous decisions in favor of the appellant, ultimately setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal.

Issue 2:
The case also addressed the interpretation of the exemption from service tax for job workers manufacturing excisable goods. The revenue contended that the exemption applies only if the assessee is manufacturing excisable goods, which they argued was not the case for medicines containing alcohol. However, the Tribunal disagreed, emphasizing that the medicines manufactured were in compliance with the Drugs and Cosmetic Act and subject to Excise duty. The Tribunal found the revenue's interpretation flawed and cited legal provisions and precedents to support the appellant's position. The Tribunal noted that the first appellate authority had previously ruled in favor of the appellant in similar matters, which the revenue did not challenge. Consequently, the impugned order was deemed unsustainable and set aside, allowing the appeal.

Issue 3:
The judgment also focused on the correct application of legal provisions and precedents in determining service tax liability for manufacturing medicines containing alcohol. The Tribunal highlighted that the lower authorities' assertion that the activity did not amount to manufacturing was incorrect, given the compliance with relevant laws and the imposition of Excise duty on the products. By referencing established case law and previous decisions, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned order was unsustainable. The Tribunal set aside the order, aligning with authoritative judicial pronouncements and allowing the appeal filed by the appellant.

This detailed analysis of the legal judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented, relevant legal provisions, precedents cited, and the Tribunal's ultimate decision to set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.