M/s. Cassel Research Laboratories (P) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai South Commissionerate
Service Tax
2018 (7) TMI 266 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 13-4-2018
ST/Misc. /41108/2017 and ST/445/2011 – Final Order No. 41174 / 2018
Service Tax
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) and Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical)
Ms. S. Sridevi, Advocate for the Appellant
Shri S. Govindarajan, AC (AR) for the Respondent
ORDER
The appellants are manufacturers of P or P medicaments and are registered with the Service Tax Department under various services. The appellant obtained registration under 'Technical Inspection and Certification Service' and were paying service tax under the said category for services rendered to their customer M/s. Lessac Research Laboratories (P) Ltd. Puducherry (herein referred to as LRL). Later on, on receiving legal advice that the services rendered to LRL does not amount to Technical Ins
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ervice would only be covered by the taxable service of Technical Inspection and Certification Service. The appellant is not a Technical and Certification Agency and therefore the service does not fall under the said category. The appellant had contested the show cause notice stating that if at all the activity would fall only under Scientific or Technical Consultancy service. She argued that the demand has been confirmed by both the authorities merely on the ground that the appellant had initially paid the service tax under Technical Inspection and Certification Service. The appellant being a manufacturer of P&P medicaments is not a Technical and Certification Agency and therefore the demand under the said category is without any legal basis.
3. The ld. AR Shri S. Govindarajan reiterated the findings in the impugned order. He adverted to the discussions made by the Commissioner (Appeals) and submitted that the appellant have been paying service tax for a prolonged period of two years
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
l inspection and certification”.
Section 65(105)(zzi), “Taxable Service” means any service provided or to be provided
To any person, by a technical inspection and certification agency, in relation to technical inspection and certification
6 From the definition, it is clear that when services of Technical Inspection and Certification Service is rendered to any person by a Technical and Certification Agency, the same would be taxable under the category of Technical Inspection and Certification Service. In the present case, the appellant is not a Technical and Certification Agency but is a manufacturer of P&P medicaments. There is nothing in the show cause notice as to how the appellant would fit into the classification of Technical Inspection and Certification Service. In para 6 of the show cause notice, it is alleged that the appellant have not disclosed their receipts in regard to technical consulting fees. Thus, the department themselves are not fully clear whether the appellants a
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =