https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763561 CESTAT Hyderabad dismissed the appeal where the appellant contended their agreement with a company was a partnership arrangement exempt from service tax. The tribunal held the agreement dated 17.10.2001, despite a later unregistered codicil claiming partnership status, was actually a service agreement between provider and recipient. The services provided were classified as Mining Services under Section 65(105)(zzzh) of Finance Act 1994, not Business Support Services as claimed by appellant. The tribunal upheld invocation of extended limitation period, finding appellant failed to properly disclose the nature of services and codicil to authorities, justifying service tax liability on mining services provided. en-us Fri, 20 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 22 Dec 2024 13:02:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763561 CESTAT Hyderabad dismissed the appeal where the appellant contended their agreement with a company was a partnership arrangement exempt from service tax. The tribunal held the agreement dated 17.10.2001, despite a later unregistered codicil claiming partnership status, was actually a service agreement between provider and recipient. The services provided were classified as Mining Services under Section 65(105)(zzzh) of Finance Act 1994, not Business Support Services as claimed by appellant. The tribunal upheld invocation of extended limitation period, finding appellant failed to properly disclose the nature of services and codicil to authorities, justifying service tax liability on mining services provided. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 20 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763561