<?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 (12) TMI 1713 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200838</link>
    <description>Chilling of milk was treated as a process that renders the product marketable and therefore amounts to manufacture under Note 6 of Chapter 4 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Because the activity fell within manufacture, it could not simultaneously be taxed as Business Auxiliary Service under service tax law. The service tax demand and penalties were therefore unsustainable and were set aside, with relief granted to the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 28 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Apr 2018 15:07:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=518152" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (12) TMI 1713 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200838</link>
      <description>Chilling of milk was treated as a process that renders the product marketable and therefore amounts to manufacture under Note 6 of Chapter 4 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Because the activity fell within manufacture, it could not simultaneously be taxed as Business Auxiliary Service under service tax law. The service tax demand and penalties were therefore unsustainable and were set aside, with relief granted to the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200838</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>