<?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>2020 (2) TMI 754 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392310</link>
    <description>Re-treading of old and used tyres was treated as manufacture because retreaded tyres can come into existence only through that process. The view that the assessee was merely providing a maintenance or repair service was rejected. On that basis, the activity was held to fall within the excise regime under Chapter Heading 4012 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, not within taxable service, and the service tax demand was found unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Feb 2020 11:19:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=604294" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (2) TMI 754 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392310</link>
      <description>Re-treading of old and used tyres was treated as manufacture because retreaded tyres can come into existence only through that process. The view that the assessee was merely providing a maintenance or repair service was rejected. On that basis, the activity was held to fall within the excise regime under Chapter Heading 4012 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, not within taxable service, and the service tax demand was found unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392310</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>