https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769046 CESTAT Hyderabad held that appellant's tyre retreading activities did not constitute manufacturing during the relevant period, therefore no Central Excise duty was leviable. The appellant operated as MRF Ltd franchisee, providing retreading services to customers using proprietary technology and materials. The tribunal found the department's classification under MMRS inappropriate if the activity constituted Works Contract Service. The case was remanded to Original Adjudicating Authority to determine whether the contract between appellant and customers was composite in nature. Appeal disposed through remand. en-us Wed, 16 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 Apr 2025 08:38:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769046 CESTAT Hyderabad held that appellant's tyre retreading activities did not constitute manufacturing during the relevant period, therefore no Central Excise duty was leviable. The appellant operated as MRF Ltd franchisee, providing retreading services to customers using proprietary technology and materials. The tribunal found the department's classification under MMRS inappropriate if the activity constituted Works Contract Service. The case was remanded to Original Adjudicating Authority to determine whether the contract between appellant and customers was composite in nature. Appeal disposed through remand. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 16 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769046