<?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>2026 (6) TMI 844 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793463</link>
    <description>Royalty on minerals is treated as taxable consideration for a mining-related service only where a mining right or licence has actually been granted and the royalty is shown to be paid for that licence. On the stated facts, the amounts were explained as sums withheld by State works authorities pending compliance documentation, not as royalty for any mining licence, so no service tax liability under reverse charge was established. The demand was also found unsupported by corroborative evidence, since it rested mainly on balance-sheet entries, and extended limitation was not justified in the absence of proof of suppression or wilful misstatement. The impugned demands were therefore unsustainable on both merits and limitation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 15 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Jun 2026 07:46:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=907382" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (6) TMI 844 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793463</link>
      <description>Royalty on minerals is treated as taxable consideration for a mining-related service only where a mining right or licence has actually been granted and the royalty is shown to be paid for that licence. On the stated facts, the amounts were explained as sums withheld by State works authorities pending compliance documentation, not as royalty for any mining licence, so no service tax liability under reverse charge was established. The demand was also found unsupported by corroborative evidence, since it rested mainly on balance-sheet entries, and extended limitation was not justified in the absence of proof of suppression or wilful misstatement. The impugned demands were therefore unsustainable on both merits and limitation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793463</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>