<?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>2020 (4) TMI 343 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=394436</link>
    <description>Transportation of coal from pit-heads or stock heaps to railway sidings or within the plant was treated as transport of goods by road, with incidental loading and unloading not converting it into mining service or cargo handling service, so the demand failed. Construction of a shop-cum-godown was treated as a composite works contract, which could not be taxed under commercial or industrial construction service for the pre-1 June 2007 period; internal roads also fell within the statutory road exclusion, which was not limited to public roads. Construction of houses for employees was held to fall within personal use, so it was outside taxable residential complex service.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Apr 2020 09:47:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=610011" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (4) TMI 343 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=394436</link>
      <description>Transportation of coal from pit-heads or stock heaps to railway sidings or within the plant was treated as transport of goods by road, with incidental loading and unloading not converting it into mining service or cargo handling service, so the demand failed. Construction of a shop-cum-godown was treated as a composite works contract, which could not be taxed under commercial or industrial construction service for the pre-1 June 2007 period; internal roads also fell within the statutory road exclusion, which was not limited to public roads. Construction of houses for employees was held to fall within personal use, so it was outside taxable residential complex service.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=394436</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>