<?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>2023 (6) TMI 788 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=439214</link>
    <description>Sterilization of packed goods received on job-work could fall within Notification No. 8/2005-S.T. because the exemption was not limited to raw materials alone; packed goods treated as semi-finished goods were covered where production or processing was done on behalf of a client and the goods were returned for use in manufacture. The notification&#039;s explanation showed that the process need only complete part or whole of production, and a subsequent manufacture by the client was not a necessary condition. The Board clarification dealt with taxability of the service, not exemption eligibility, so it did not defeat the claim. The service tax demand was therefore not sustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 Jun 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 20 Jun 2023 10:08:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=717016" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (6) TMI 788 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=439214</link>
      <description>Sterilization of packed goods received on job-work could fall within Notification No. 8/2005-S.T. because the exemption was not limited to raw materials alone; packed goods treated as semi-finished goods were covered where production or processing was done on behalf of a client and the goods were returned for use in manufacture. The notification&#039;s explanation showed that the process need only complete part or whole of production, and a subsequent manufacture by the client was not a necessary condition. The Board clarification dealt with taxability of the service, not exemption eligibility, so it did not defeat the claim. The service tax demand was therefore not sustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Jun 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=439214</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>