<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2014 (6) TMI 492 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248588</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, a job worker, in a service tax dispute with the department regarding the provision of Business Auxiliary Services to a principal manufacturer. The Tribunal held that the job work undertaken constituted manufacturing, not Business Auxiliary Services, as the processed goods were used by the principal manufacturer in producing final products. The appellant&#039;s activities were found to be eligible for exemption under notification no.8/2005-ST, and the impugned tax demand, penalties, and interest were set aside. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant&#039;s position was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Jul 2015 18:15:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=357610" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (6) TMI 492 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248588</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, a job worker, in a service tax dispute with the department regarding the provision of Business Auxiliary Services to a principal manufacturer. The Tribunal held that the job work undertaken constituted manufacturing, not Business Auxiliary Services, as the processed goods were used by the principal manufacturer in producing final products. The appellant&#039;s activities were found to be eligible for exemption under notification no.8/2005-ST, and the impugned tax demand, penalties, and interest were set aside. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant&#039;s position was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248588</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>