<?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>2016 (1) TMI 620 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270828</link>
    <description>Job work converting aluminium ingots into aluminium castings on a production-linked basis was treated as manufacturing, not manpower recruitment, because the arrangement depended on quantum of output rather than supply of labour. As manufacturing activity, it was outside business auxiliary services and also fell within the exemption notification relied on. The service tax demand therefore could not be sustained, and the impugned order was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Sep 2016 16:39:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=413294" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (1) TMI 620 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270828</link>
      <description>Job work converting aluminium ingots into aluminium castings on a production-linked basis was treated as manufacturing, not manpower recruitment, because the arrangement depended on quantum of output rather than supply of labour. As manufacturing activity, it was outside business auxiliary services and also fell within the exemption notification relied on. The service tax demand therefore could not be sustained, and the impugned order was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270828</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>