<?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>2016 (4) TMI 156 - CESTAT MUMBAI-LB</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326042</link>
    <description>The HC of Orissa upheld the classification of coal handlers&#039; activities as &quot;Cargo Handling Service,&quot; making them liable for service tax. The HC of Andhra Pradesh, however, classified packers&#039; activities as &quot;Packaging Service,&quot; taxable from June 16, 2005, resolving a conflict between Tribunal benches. The SC remanded the case to CESTAT to address inconsistencies, specifically regarding packers. CESTAT found no contradiction in coal handlers&#039; cases but noted the need for further resolution in packers&#039; cases due to differing Tribunal decisions, suggesting further guidance from the SC. The matter was adjourned for future hearings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 02 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Nov 2023 13:09:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=422562" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (4) TMI 156 - CESTAT MUMBAI-LB</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326042</link>
      <description>The HC of Orissa upheld the classification of coal handlers&#039; activities as &quot;Cargo Handling Service,&quot; making them liable for service tax. The HC of Andhra Pradesh, however, classified packers&#039; activities as &quot;Packaging Service,&quot; taxable from June 16, 2005, resolving a conflict between Tribunal benches. The SC remanded the case to CESTAT to address inconsistencies, specifically regarding packers. CESTAT found no contradiction in coal handlers&#039; cases but noted the need for further resolution in packers&#039; cases due to differing Tribunal decisions, suggesting further guidance from the SC. The matter was adjourned for future hearings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 02 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326042</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>