<?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>2015 (4) TMI 320 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258438</link>
    <description>Conversion of black bars into bright bars on job work basis was treated as manufacture because the same process had already been recognised as manufacture in the assessee&#039;s excise operations, and it could not change character merely due to being performed for another party. The view was reinforced by Notification No. 202/88-CE, which applied to manufactured goods and supported the conclusion that the activity was manufacture rather than production of goods on behalf of a client not amounting to manufacture. Accordingly, the processing charges were not exigible to service tax under Business Auxiliary Service, and the demand was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Sep 2015 15:46:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=381207" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (4) TMI 320 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258438</link>
      <description>Conversion of black bars into bright bars on job work basis was treated as manufacture because the same process had already been recognised as manufacture in the assessee&#039;s excise operations, and it could not change character merely due to being performed for another party. The view was reinforced by Notification No. 202/88-CE, which applied to manufactured goods and supported the conclusion that the activity was manufacture rather than production of goods on behalf of a client not amounting to manufacture. Accordingly, the processing charges were not exigible to service tax under Business Auxiliary Service, and the demand was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258438</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>