https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783338 CESTAT Kolkata allowed the appeal, holding that the appellant's job work/conversion activity for medicaments, using raw materials supplied by the principal, amounted to "manufacture" under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Consequently, the activity fell outside the ambit of "Business Auxiliary Service" under clause (v) of its definition, as only production not amounting to manufacture is taxable thereunder. Relying on prior CESTAT precedents and the CBEC Circular dated 27.10.2008, the Tribunal ruled that no service tax could be levied on the consideration received, set aside the impugned order, and rejected the service tax demand in full. en-us Thu, 04 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 15 Dec 2025 08:39:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783338 CESTAT Kolkata allowed the appeal, holding that the appellant's job work/conversion activity for medicaments, using raw materials supplied by the principal, amounted to "manufacture" under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Consequently, the activity fell outside the ambit of "Business Auxiliary Service" under clause (v) of its definition, as only production not amounting to manufacture is taxable thereunder. Relying on prior CESTAT precedents and the CBEC Circular dated 27.10.2008, the Tribunal ruled that no service tax could be levied on the consideration received, set aside the impugned order, and rejected the service tax demand in full. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 04 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783338