CESTAT held that the appellant's in-plant handling and movement of steel materials, including cutting, bending, bundling, de-coiling and internal transportation within the steel plant, did not constitute "Cargo Handling Service"; corresponding service tax demand was set aside. However, contracts found to be in the nature of "Management, Maintenance or Repair Service" and "Commercial or Industrial Construction Service" (without material component or eligibility to abatement) were correctly classified and the related demands upheld. Demands under "Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service" were quashed where services were rendered prior to 16.06.2005, notwithstanding later billing and payment. On limitation, CESTAT held that PSU status does not bar invocation of the extended period where suppression or deliberate withholding exists. The appeal was thus partly allowed.
CESTAT held that the appellant's in-plant handling and movement of steel materials, including cutting, bending, bundling, de-coiling and internal transportation within the steel plant, did not constitute "Cargo Handling Service"; corresponding service tax demand was set aside. However, contracts found to be in the nature of "Management, Maintenance or Repair Service" and "Commercial or Industrial Construction Service" (without material component or eligibility to abatement) were correctly classified and the related demands upheld. Demands under "Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service" were quashed where services were rendered prior to 16.06.2005, notwithstanding later billing and payment. On limitation, CESTAT held that PSU status does not bar invocation of the extended period where suppression or deliberate withholding exists. The appeal was thus partly allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
