<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2011 (7) TMI 483 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207971</link>
    <description>Service tax could not be sustained on a ground not alleged in the show-cause notice, because the demand was originally based on manpower recruitment and supply but was later upheld as cargo handling service. The tribunal held that a liability cannot be fastened on a different basis from the one pleaded in the notice. It also held that, even if the activity of loading, unloading, labour and cartage for shifting foodgrains were treated as cargo handling service, the service was exempt as one in relation to agriculture under Notification No. 10/2002-ST. The impugned orders were set aside and no tax or penalty survived on the grounds sustained below.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Feb 2012 14:44:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=181444" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (7) TMI 483 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207971</link>
      <description>Service tax could not be sustained on a ground not alleged in the show-cause notice, because the demand was originally based on manpower recruitment and supply but was later upheld as cargo handling service. The tribunal held that a liability cannot be fastened on a different basis from the one pleaded in the notice. It also held that, even if the activity of loading, unloading, labour and cartage for shifting foodgrains were treated as cargo handling service, the service was exempt as one in relation to agriculture under Notification No. 10/2002-ST. The impugned orders were set aside and no tax or penalty survived on the grounds sustained below.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207971</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>