The CESTAT held that the agreement between the appellant and M/s GG was a service agreement and not a partnership agreement. The nature of service provided by the appellant to M/s GG was rightly classified as 'Mining Service' u/s 65(105)(zzzh) of the Finance Act, 1994, and not as 'Business Support Service'. The invocation of the extended period of limitation was justified as the appellant did not disclose all relevant facts to the department. Consequently, the appellant was liable to pay Service Tax on the 'Mining Services' provided to M/s GG. The appeal was dismissed.
The CESTAT held that the agreement between the appellant and M/s GG was a service agreement and not a partnership agreement. The nature of service provided by the appellant to M/s GG was rightly classified as 'Mining Service' u/s 65(105)(zzzh) of the Finance Act, 1994, and not as 'Business Support Service'. The invocation of the extended period of limitation was justified as the appellant did not disclose all relevant facts to the department. Consequently, the appellant was liable to pay Service Tax on the 'Mining Services' provided to M/s GG. The appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
