https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242189 The Tribunal allowed the appeal by remanding the issue of unjust enrichment back to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration. It held that the activities of machining and flame hardening were part of the manufacturing process, making the appellants not liable to pay service tax under Business Auxiliary Service. The appellant's argument that the tax burden was not passed on to consumers was not proven through their Books of Accounts. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a fresh decision on unjust enrichment after providing the appellant with an opportunity to be heard. 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 The Tribunal allowed the appeal by remanding the issue of unjust enrichment back to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration. It held that the activities of machining and flame hardening were part of the manufacturing process, making the appellants not liable to pay service tax under Business Auxiliary Service. The appellant's argument that the tax burden was not passed on to consumers was not proven through their Books of Accounts. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a fresh decision on unjust enrichment after providing the appellant with an opportunity to be heard. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 30 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242189