https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349596 Where the dominant character of the contract was mining-related work involving movement of limestone and rejects within the mining area, loading and unloading was only incidental and did not amount to cargo handling service. The Tribunal followed its earlier view and the Supreme Court ruling relied on, finding no distinguishing facts to support a different classification. The demand was therefore unsustainable, and the relief granted to the assessee was left undisturbed. en-us Mon, 07 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Oct 2017 10:58:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349596 Where the dominant character of the contract was mining-related work involving movement of limestone and rejects within the mining area, loading and unloading was only incidental and did not amount to cargo handling service. The Tribunal followed its earlier view and the Supreme Court ruling relied on, finding no distinguishing facts to support a different classification. The demand was therefore unsustainable, and the relief granted to the assessee was left undisturbed. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 07 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349596