<?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>2017 (9) TMI 1326 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348569</link>
    <description>A mining contract covering mine development, sizing, crushing, screening, material handling and related operations was treated as service in relation to mining and therefore taxable as mining service under the Finance Act, 1994. The arrangement showed a contractor performing mining-related work for the mine owner for agreed consideration, with sale proceeds collected by the owner and the contractor paid a share of the consideration, indicating a service-provider and service-receiver relationship. The argument that the activity amounted to manufacture of iron ore was rejected because the contract and actual operations disclosed mining activity rather than manufacture. Service tax liability and penalty were sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 31 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Apr 2018 14:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=490483" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (9) TMI 1326 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348569</link>
      <description>A mining contract covering mine development, sizing, crushing, screening, material handling and related operations was treated as service in relation to mining and therefore taxable as mining service under the Finance Act, 1994. The arrangement showed a contractor performing mining-related work for the mine owner for agreed consideration, with sale proceeds collected by the owner and the contractor paid a share of the consideration, indicating a service-provider and service-receiver relationship. The argument that the activity amounted to manufacture of iron ore was rejected because the contract and actual operations disclosed mining activity rather than manufacture. Service tax liability and penalty were sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348569</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>