<?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>2017 (1) TMI 1550 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199908</link>
    <description>Chilling of milk is treated as manufacture under Note 6 of Chapter 4 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 where the facts are identical to earlier settled cases. Because the activity qualifies as manufacture, it falls outside the scope of Business Auxiliary Service and is not liable to service tax on that basis. The impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Apr 2018 14:38:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=512674" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (1) TMI 1550 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199908</link>
      <description>Chilling of milk is treated as manufacture under Note 6 of Chapter 4 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 where the facts are identical to earlier settled cases. Because the activity qualifies as manufacture, it falls outside the scope of Business Auxiliary Service and is not liable to service tax on that basis. The impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199908</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>