Tribunal rules bottling of liquor not subject to service tax as packaging services

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, setting aside the service tax demands on bottling of liquor under "Packaging Services." Relying on the Madhya Pradesh HC decision in Maa Sharda Wine Traders, it held that bottling liquor constitutes manufacturing, not packaging. Despite the C.B.E.C.'s stance, the Tribunal followed the HC precedent, determining that liquor bottling falls outside packaging services for service tax purposes. The Tribunal emphasized the binding nature of the HC decision, leading to the favorable outcome for the appellants.

---

---

Issues:
Whether bottling of liquor amounts to manufacture of liquor or only packaging for the purpose of attracting service taxRs.

Analysis:
The appellants appealed against the confirmation of service tax demands under the category of "Packaging Services." The core issue was whether bottling of liquor constitutes manufacturing or packaging for service tax purposes. The appellants relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Maa Sharda Wine Traders, which held that bottling of liquor is manufacturing and not packaging. The Tribunal had previously followed this decision in the cases of CCE v. Agarwal Distrillers and Kedia Castle Delleon Industries Ltd., excluding bottling of liquor from the scope of packaging service.

The Departmental Representative argued that the Central Board of Excise and Customs (C.B.E.C.) clarified that bottling of liquor does not amount to manufacturing, suggesting that service tax should be levied on packaging service. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal observed that the issue had been conclusively settled by the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the Maa Sharda Wine Traders case. The High Court determined that bottling of liquor constitutes a manufacturing activity and is not covered under packaging services. Given the finality of this decision, the Tribunal was bound to follow the precedent set by the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, and the impugned orders were set aside.

---