TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 858
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....I/2009 dated 24.11.2009. Revenue has also filed Cross Objection. 2. The Cross Objection filed by the Revenue is disposed of as it is not raising any appeal from the order decided by adjudicating authority. 3. Heard both sides and perused the records. 4. Brief facts that arise for consideration are that the appellant herein are engaged in providing Clinical Trial/Research Service to various Pharmaceutical companies located in India and abroad in respect of clinical testing of new drugs. Revenue authorities are of the view that the services rendered by the appellants would be covered under "Technical Testing and Analysis" under Sectino 65(106) of Finance Act, 1994. The period involved in both the appeals are from 01.07.2003 to 31.03.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d Analysis services. He would submit that the Explanation is stating the obvious as to exclusion in the Explanation in respect of pharmaceuticals which was never covered under the main definition as the main definition talks about the services in relation to clinical trial services which would cover under the Technical Testing and Analysis undertaken by the appellant for the development and process, relies on judgement of Supreme Court in the case of Sulochana Amma vs. Narayan Nair - 1995 (76) ELT 785 (SC) for the proposition that Explanation to a section is not a substantive provision by itself and it is entitled to explain the meaning of the words contained in the section or clarify certain ambiguities or clear them up. He would rely upon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed prior to 01.5.2006. Their argument is that there are two types of tests conducted on drugs. The first type is testing of the quality, purity, composition, strength etc. of the drugs themselves. The second type of testing is the effect of the drugs on human beings (clinical trials). These two types of tests are covered under different sets of rules in the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. According to M/s. Quintiles Spectral (India) Pvt. Limited, Ahmedabad, Technical Testing and Analysis service, as it stood prior to 01.5.2006, covered only the first type of tests and therefore, the introduction of the " Explanation" had the effect of expanding the scope of Section 65 (106). Therefore, this "Explanation" cannot have retrospective effect. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... all these services from the definition since the expression, any service provided in relation to human beings and animals is very wide and therefore was no need for exclusive definition. On the other hand the definition prior to amendment would give an impression that technical testing and analysis can be definitely said to be in relation to human beings or animals was excluded. To make it includable in the definition, the amendment becomes necessary. Therefore, as contended by the appellants, the amendment in reality expounded the scope of the definition and therefore, it cannot be clarificatory in nature. 9. We are supported in taking this view from the decisions cited by learned advocate in the case of Skycell Communications Limited.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ched to a section bears the nomenclature "Explanation", it cannot always be considered as conveying the true and natural meaning of the words or the provisions of the Act. The meaning attributable to the relevant provisions of the Act without the Explanations shall have to be considered first, to find out whether it created an artificial situation, or created ambiguity, and if so, the Explanation may be considered as having injected the true and real meaning to those provisions from the very inception of the provisions to which the Explanation is added." 10. In the case of Sedco Forex International Drill inc., the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in Para 17 as follows :- "As was affirmed by this Court in Goslino Mario a cardin....