https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242189 Machining and flame hardening of forgings and castings received from a principal manufacturer under Notification No. 214/86-CE were treated as part of the manufacturing process, and because the principal manufacturer was already discharging duty on the processed goods, the activity was not liable to service tax as Business Auxiliary Service. The record also showed that the service tax amount was reflected in invoices, but the appellant claimed it was not actually recovered, so the question of unjust enrichment required fresh examination by the adjudicating authority. Liability was therefore negated, while unjust enrichment was remanded for reconsideration after hearing the appellant. en-us Wed, 30 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 11 Sep 2015 14:40:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242189 Machining and flame hardening of forgings and castings received from a principal manufacturer under Notification No. 214/86-CE were treated as part of the manufacturing process, and because the principal manufacturer was already discharging duty on the processed goods, the activity was not liable to service tax as Business Auxiliary Service. The record also showed that the service tax amount was reflected in invoices, but the appellant claimed it was not actually recovered, so the question of unjust enrichment required fresh examination by the adjudicating authority. Liability was therefore negated, while unjust enrichment was remanded for reconsideration after hearing the appellant. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 30 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242189