https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348624 The Tribunal held that the sub-contractor's drilling and blasting activity did not qualify as dredging service under Section 65(36a) for service tax purposes. The Tribunal found that the removal of materials like silt and rocks was performed by another sub-contractor, indicating that the drilling and blasting alone did not constitute dredging. As a result, the demand for service tax, interest, and penalty under Section 78 was deemed unsustainable. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. en-us Mon, 28 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 14 Feb 2018 10:24:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348624 The Tribunal held that the sub-contractor's drilling and blasting activity did not qualify as dredging service under Section 65(36a) for service tax purposes. The Tribunal found that the removal of materials like silt and rocks was performed by another sub-contractor, indicating that the drilling and blasting alone did not constitute dredging. As a result, the demand for service tax, interest, and penalty under Section 78 was deemed unsustainable. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 28 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348624