<?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>2013 (10) TMI 1441 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190640</link>
    <description>Drilling and blasting undertaken under alleged directions of a main contractor was examined against the statutory scope of dredging service, which includes removal of material such as silt, rocks, sand, debris and similar matter while excavating, cleaning, deepening, widening or lengthening a river, port, harbour, backwater or estuary. Because the applicants produced no work order to establish the exact nature of the activity and relied only on the assertion that they had carried out drilling and blasting, the Tribunal found that such activity could prima facie involve removal of material but did not justify a total waiver of pre-deposit. Partial pre-deposit was directed and recovery was stayed pending appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Feb 2017 12:54:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=459321" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (10) TMI 1441 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190640</link>
      <description>Drilling and blasting undertaken under alleged directions of a main contractor was examined against the statutory scope of dredging service, which includes removal of material such as silt, rocks, sand, debris and similar matter while excavating, cleaning, deepening, widening or lengthening a river, port, harbour, backwater or estuary. Because the applicants produced no work order to establish the exact nature of the activity and relied only on the assertion that they had carried out drilling and blasting, the Tribunal found that such activity could prima facie involve removal of material but did not justify a total waiver of pre-deposit. Partial pre-deposit was directed and recovery was stayed pending appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190640</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>