https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793571 Activity undertaken under a principal-to-principal processing arrangement was treated as manufacture, not a taxable service, because the raw material, machinery and technical know-how were supplied by GCPL while the appellant used its labour and premises to produce goods cleared on central excise duty. Applying its earlier decisions on identical arrangements, CESTAT held that once the activity satisfied manufacture under section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, it could not be subjected again to service tax under the Finance Act, 1994, including under the negative list regime. The service tax demand was therefore unsustainable and was set aside. en-us Fri, 12 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 18 Jun 2026 12:27:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793571 Activity undertaken under a principal-to-principal processing arrangement was treated as manufacture, not a taxable service, because the raw material, machinery and technical know-how were supplied by GCPL while the appellant used its labour and premises to produce goods cleared on central excise duty. Applying its earlier decisions on identical arrangements, CESTAT held that once the activity satisfied manufacture under section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, it could not be subjected again to service tax under the Finance Act, 1994, including under the negative list regime. The service tax demand was therefore unsustainable and was set aside. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 12 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793571