<?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>2009 (4) TMI 9 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33032</link>
    <description>Loading and transporting limestone and rejects within a mine, under mining supervision and from the mine head to crusher premises, was treated as part of mining operations rather than cargo handling service. The text states that cargo handling under the Finance Act, 1994 covers loading, unloading, packing or unpacking of cargo, not mere transport of goods, and that mineral moved within a mining area is not commercially understood as cargo. It further states that, because taxability had been clarified and the assessee held a bona fide view that the activity was not taxable, the extended limitation period was unavailable and the show cause notices were time-barred. The demand and penalties therefore could not survive.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 02 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Sep 2009 12:16:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=71667" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (4) TMI 9 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33032</link>
      <description>Loading and transporting limestone and rejects within a mine, under mining supervision and from the mine head to crusher premises, was treated as part of mining operations rather than cargo handling service. The text states that cargo handling under the Finance Act, 1994 covers loading, unloading, packing or unpacking of cargo, not mere transport of goods, and that mineral moved within a mining area is not commercially understood as cargo. It further states that, because taxability had been clarified and the assessee held a bona fide view that the activity was not taxable, the extended limitation period was unavailable and the show cause notices were time-barred. The demand and penalties therefore could not survive.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33032</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>