<?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>2009 (9) TMI 740 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148480</link>
    <description>In a service tax dispute on construction-related activity, the Tribunal found a strong prima facie case for complete waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery. The appellant&#039;s activity was alleged to be completion and finishing work in relation to construction of commercial complexes, while exemption under Notification No. 15/04-S.T. was claimed. Relying on an earlier stay order in a similar matter, the Tribunal noted that comparable activity had been treated as works contract service and that service tax liability had prima facie already been discharged under that category. Interim protection was therefore extended for the pendency of the appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 14 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Apr 2013 10:53:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=166520" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (9) TMI 740 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148480</link>
      <description>In a service tax dispute on construction-related activity, the Tribunal found a strong prima facie case for complete waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery. The appellant&#039;s activity was alleged to be completion and finishing work in relation to construction of commercial complexes, while exemption under Notification No. 15/04-S.T. was claimed. Relying on an earlier stay order in a similar matter, the Tribunal noted that comparable activity had been treated as works contract service and that service tax liability had prima facie already been discharged under that category. Interim protection was therefore extended for the pendency of the appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148480</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>