Pharma manufacturer wins tax case on conversion charges for excisable goods The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, a pharmaceutical manufacturer, stating they were not liable to pay service tax under 'Business Auxiliary ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Pharma manufacturer wins tax case on conversion charges for excisable goods
The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, a pharmaceutical manufacturer, stating they were not liable to pay service tax under 'Business Auxiliary Services' for receiving conversion charges for manufacturing excisable goods exempted from central excise duty. The decision was supported by a CBEC Circular and a previous Tribunal case, leading to the demand for service tax being set aside, and the appeal allowed with consequential relief.
Issues involved: The issue involves whether the appellant, engaged in the manufacturing of pharmaceutical products, is liable to pay service tax under the category of 'Business Auxiliary Services' for receiving conversion charges from a client for manufacturing excisable goods exempted from central excise duty.
Summary:
Issue 1: Liability of the appellant to pay service tax under 'Business Auxiliary Services' category The Department contended that since neither the appellant nor the client had paid excise duty, the appellant was not entitled to avail benefits under Service Tax Exemption Notification No. 08/2005-ST. Proceedings were initiated to demand service tax for the period April 2005 to March 2006. Decision: The Tribunal found that the appellant, being a manufacturer of pharmaceutical goods, was not liable to pay service tax under 'Business Auxiliary Services' as the manufacturing activity did not fall under the purview of BAS. The CBEC Circular and a previous Tribunal case supported this view, leading to the setting aside of the demand and allowing the appeal with consequential relief.
Key Points: - The appellant received conversion charges for manufacturing excisable goods exempted from central excise duty. - Department claimed appellant was liable for service tax under 'Business Auxiliary Services' due to non-payment of excise duty by both appellant and client. - Tribunal found appellant's manufacturing activity not covered under BAS, citing CBEC Circular and previous Tribunal case. - Demand for service tax was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
