<?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>2004 (12) TMI 539 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115300</link>
    <description>The judgment set aside the impugned order, holding that the turnkey contract could not be vivisected to impose service tax on individual components under the category of Consulting Engineer. The appeals were allowed, emphasizing that the entire contract should be considered as a whole and not subjected to service tax in parts. The ruling relied on precedents and authoritative definitions to support the conclusion that a turnkey contract is indivisible for the purposes of service tax.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 May 2012 17:42:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=152299" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (12) TMI 539 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115300</link>
      <description>The judgment set aside the impugned order, holding that the turnkey contract could not be vivisected to impose service tax on individual components under the category of Consulting Engineer. The appeals were allowed, emphasizing that the entire contract should be considered as a whole and not subjected to service tax in parts. The ruling relied on precedents and authoritative definitions to support the conclusion that a turnkey contract is indivisible for the purposes of service tax.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115300</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>