https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361112 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, determining that their activity of rubber backing and edging polypropylene carpets constituted manufacturing under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal considered precedents and government clarifications, noting that the appellant's process resulted in the manufacture of rubber mats falling under a specific tariff heading. It highlighted that service tax does not apply when the activity amounts to manufacturing, referencing a similar case where service tax demands were dropped. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the service tax demand of Rs. 3,83,162/- along with penalties and interest, allowing the appeal with any consequential relief for the appellants. en-us Thu, 10 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 30 May 2018 10:43:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361112 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, determining that their activity of rubber backing and edging polypropylene carpets constituted manufacturing under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal considered precedents and government clarifications, noting that the appellant's process resulted in the manufacture of rubber mats falling under a specific tariff heading. It highlighted that service tax does not apply when the activity amounts to manufacturing, referencing a similar case where service tax demands were dropped. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the service tax demand of Rs. 3,83,162/- along with penalties and interest, allowing the appeal with any consequential relief for the appellants. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 10 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361112