https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75965 The High Court reviewed a case challenging the classification of job work activity as business auxiliary service for Service Tax purposes. The appellant argued that their manufacturing of perfumes and pharmaceuticals did not fall under business auxiliary service but constituted manufacturing under the Central Excise Act. The Board's circular supported this position, leading to the Tribunal ruling in favor of the assessee. The Tribunal emphasized the distinction between manufacturing and excisable goods, ultimately setting aside the Service Tax demand and allowing the appeal based on the exclusion clause within the definition of business auxiliary service. en-us Fri, 19 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 27 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75965 The High Court reviewed a case challenging the classification of job work activity as business auxiliary service for Service Tax purposes. The appellant argued that their manufacturing of perfumes and pharmaceuticals did not fall under business auxiliary service but constituted manufacturing under the Central Excise Act. The Board's circular supported this position, leading to the Tribunal ruling in favor of the assessee. The Tribunal emphasized the distinction between manufacturing and excisable goods, ultimately setting aside the Service Tax demand and allowing the appeal based on the exclusion clause within the definition of business auxiliary service. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 19 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75965