https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242342 The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI, in the case, determined that the heat treatment activity conducted by the respondent on crankshafts did not amount to manufacture and did not fall under Business Auxiliary Service. The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The certificates from principal manufacturers confirming the treatment of crankshafts played a significant role in the decision, establishing that the respondent's actions did not align with Business Auxiliary Service classification. en-us Fri, 18 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 21 Feb 2017 15:38:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242342 The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI, in the case, determined that the heat treatment activity conducted by the respondent on crankshafts did not amount to manufacture and did not fall under Business Auxiliary Service. The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The certificates from principal manufacturers confirming the treatment of crankshafts played a significant role in the decision, establishing that the respondent's actions did not align with Business Auxiliary Service classification. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 18 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242342