Northern Coalfields Ltd Versus CGST C.C & C. E-Jabalpur
Service Tax
2018 (8) TMI 1742 – CESTAT DELHI – TMI
CESTAT DELHI – AT
Dated:- 31-8-2018
Service Tax Appeals No. 52895-52896, 53115-53116, 53130, 53186, 53190 of 2015 with 50268, 50420 and 50434 of 2017 – Final Order No. 52911-52920\/2018
Service Tax
Shri C.L. Mahar And Ms. Rachna Gupta, JJ.
\nShri Rajeev Kumar Agarwal and Hemant Sindhwani, C.A. – for the appellants.
\nShri Amresh Jain, Authorized Representative (DR) – for the Respondent.
\nORDER
\nC.L. Mahar :-
\nIn this case, the appellant is engaged in production of coal from its various mines and sells the same on payment of Sales Tax\/ VAT. As per the requirement of the customers, the appellant also provides the acti<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ustomers hence if cutting the coal to various sizes is a service then we feel it is a service to himself and not to the buyer because buyer is being charged on per tonnage basis as per coals forms and sizes. We also feel that the present appeals are squarely covered by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Commr. Of Central Excise & Service Tax, BBSR-I Vs. Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd. vide Final Order No. 76585\/2017 dated 21.08.2017. On perusal of the said order, we find that in the similar set of facts, the Tribunal has allowed the appeal holding as under :- = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Northern Coalfields Ltd Versus CGST C.C & C. E-JabalpurService Tax2018 (8) TMI 1742 – CESTAT DELHI – TMICESTAT DELHI – ATDated:- 31-8-2018Service Tax Appeals No. 52895-52896, 53115-53116, 53130, 53186, 53190 of 2015 with 50268, 50420 and 50434 of 2017 – Final Order No. 52911-52920\/2018Service TaxShri C.L. Mahar And Ms. Rachna Gupta, JJ. Shri Rajeev Kumar … Continue reading “Northern Coalfields Ltd Versus CGST C.C & C. E-Jabalpur”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-15017","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15017","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=15017"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15017\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=15017"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=15017"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=15017"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n 2. Brief facts of the case are that during the period under consideration, the appellant was engaged in the crushing\/sizing of the coal in its own mines. While receiving the cons<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n