Just a moment...

Top
Help
Upgrade to AI Search

We've upgraded AI Search on TaxTMI with two powerful modes:

1. Basic
Quick overview summary answering your query with referencesCategory-wise results to explore all relevant documents on TaxTMI

2. Advanced
• Includes everything in Basic
Detailed report covering:
     -   Overview Summary
     -   Governing Provisions [Acts, Notifications, Circulars]
     -   Relevant Case Laws
     -   Tariff / Classification / HSN
     -   Expert views from TaxTMI
     -   Practical Guidance with immediate steps and dispute strategy

• Also highlights how each document is relevant to your query, helping you quickly understand key insights without reading the full text.Help Us Improve - by giving the rating with each AI Result:

Explore AI Search

Powered by Weblekha - Building Scalable Websites

×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

Activity of processing raw materials into new products deemed manufacturing, not job work service.

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....The CESTAT held that the appellants' activity of processing raw materials/forged blastings received from M/s. Varroc Engineering Pvt. Ltd. into 'Gear 4th Platina' amounted to manufacture u/s 2(f) of the Central Excise Act. The processes undertaken imparted a lasting change, resulting in a new product with a distinct identity. Consequently, the demand of service tax alleging the job work to be Business Auxiliary Service was set aside. The CESTAT further held that there was no suppression of facts or intention to evade tax payment by the appellants, as their activity did not attract service tax liability. Thus, invoking the extended period of limitation was incorrect. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside.....