<?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>2023 (12) TMI 1345 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456988</link>
    <description>CESTAT Kolkata allowed the appeal regarding classification of cement packing and loading services. The Tribunal held that services involving packing, loading, and unloading cement bags should be classified as Manpower Services rather than Cargo Handling Services, following precedent from CCE Bhopal vs. Jagat Enterprises. The Tribunal found no justification for different service tax treatment across different periods when the nature of services remained identical. Additionally, the extended period demand was set aside as time-barred, since the Department failed to establish suppression of facts in the first SCN and was barred from invoking extended period provisions in the second SCN per Supreme Court precedent in Nizam Sugar Factory case.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Aug 2024 21:49:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=765780" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (12) TMI 1345 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456988</link>
      <description>CESTAT Kolkata allowed the appeal regarding classification of cement packing and loading services. The Tribunal held that services involving packing, loading, and unloading cement bags should be classified as Manpower Services rather than Cargo Handling Services, following precedent from CCE Bhopal vs. Jagat Enterprises. The Tribunal found no justification for different service tax treatment across different periods when the nature of services remained identical. Additionally, the extended period demand was set aside as time-barred, since the Department failed to establish suppression of facts in the first SCN and was barred from invoking extended period provisions in the second SCN per Supreme Court precedent in Nizam Sugar Factory case.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456988</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>