<?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>2019 (9) TMI 1037 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=386269</link>
    <description>Composite raising contracts for iron ore mining were treated as a single mining operation, with drilling, blasting, excavation, extraction, screening, sorting and processing forming one integrated activity. The text states that, for the period before 1 June 2007, such work was outside Business Auxiliary Service and site formation service because its essential character was mining, and mining service entered the tax net only from that date. It also notes that a consolidated demand cannot be sustained by splitting a composite contract into separate taxable heads without proper valuation and apportionment. Penalties were set aside where the dispute was interpretational.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Sep 2019 06:49:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=588604" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (9) TMI 1037 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=386269</link>
      <description>Composite raising contracts for iron ore mining were treated as a single mining operation, with drilling, blasting, excavation, extraction, screening, sorting and processing forming one integrated activity. The text states that, for the period before 1 June 2007, such work was outside Business Auxiliary Service and site formation service because its essential character was mining, and mining service entered the tax net only from that date. It also notes that a consolidated demand cannot be sustained by splitting a composite contract into separate taxable heads without proper valuation and apportionment. Penalties were set aside where the dispute was interpretational.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=386269</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>