<?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>2024 (6) TMI 301 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753694</link>
    <description>Processing and operating plant and machinery under the assessee&#039;s supervision, with consideration fixed on a tonnage basis and labour engaged in production-related work, was treated as processing/manufacturing activity rather than manpower recruitment or supply agency service, taking it outside service tax. As the activity itself was held non-taxable, the gross receipt cum-tax adjustment also failed. A demand based on an accounting discrepancy required fresh factual verification and was remanded for reconsideration on documentary evidence. Liability on subcontractor services was confined prospectively from 23.08.2007, so the earlier period was not taxable. The related penalty was set aside, with no penalty surviving on the remanded or interpretational issues.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 08 Jun 2024 09:03:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=755730" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (6) TMI 301 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753694</link>
      <description>Processing and operating plant and machinery under the assessee&#039;s supervision, with consideration fixed on a tonnage basis and labour engaged in production-related work, was treated as processing/manufacturing activity rather than manpower recruitment or supply agency service, taking it outside service tax. As the activity itself was held non-taxable, the gross receipt cum-tax adjustment also failed. A demand based on an accounting discrepancy required fresh factual verification and was remanded for reconsideration on documentary evidence. Liability on subcontractor services was confined prospectively from 23.08.2007, so the earlier period was not taxable. The related penalty was set aside, with no penalty surviving on the remanded or interpretational issues.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753694</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>