MIDAS CARE PHARMACEUTICALS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short issue involved in this appeal is that whether the activity of job work of manufacturing alcohol based perfumes for various input -suppliers amounts to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 or is covered under the purview of "Business Auxiliary Service".

(2.) SHRI V. Sridharan, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the issue has been decided by this Tribunal in the case of Rubicon Formulations Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE & Cus, Aurangabad as reported in, 2009 TIOL 1990 CESTAT -Mum wherein this Tribunal has held that the activity taken over by the appellant amounts to manufacture within the meaning of Clause (f) of Section 2 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and same cannot be termed as "Business Auxiliary Service". He further submitted that the said legal position squarely covers by the Board's Circular F.N. 249/1/2006 -CX -4 dated 27.10.08.

(3.) IN view of the above submissions, we find that the issue involved in this case is squarely covered by the decision of Rubicon Formulations Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and held that the said activity taken over by the appellants amount to manufacture and the appellants are not liable to pay any service tax on the said activity under Business Auxiliary Service. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order. Appeals are allowed with consequential relief, if any. Cross Objection is also disposed off in the above term.