<?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>2008 (1) TMI 105 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4115</link>
    <description>Powder coating on metallic items supplied by customers was treated as processing, not manufacture, and was considered taxable under Business Auxiliary Services after the relevant amendment. The value of goods and materials sold to customers had to be excluded from the taxable base under the notification relied upon, requiring recomputation of the tax liability after verification of such value. As the dispute turned on interpretation of law, the penalty was not sustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 25 Mar 2014 12:19:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=43462" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (1) TMI 105 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4115</link>
      <description>Powder coating on metallic items supplied by customers was treated as processing, not manufacture, and was considered taxable under Business Auxiliary Services after the relevant amendment. The value of goods and materials sold to customers had to be excluded from the taxable base under the notification relied upon, requiring recomputation of the tax liability after verification of such value. As the dispute turned on interpretation of law, the penalty was not sustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4115</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>