<?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>2011 (5) TMI 629 - CESTAT, DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210221</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the service tax liability of the appellants for the period 01.07.03 to March 2005 under the maintenance and repairs service category. It found that the services provided by the appellants to Kota Thermal Power Station fell within the definition of maintenance or repair services, despite the appellants&#039; arguments that the contracts were rate contracts. The Tribunal set aside demands confirmed by the adjudicating authority for invoking a larger period but upheld demands within the limitation period. Penalties imposed on the appellants were also set aside due to their legitimate belief that they were not liable for service tax under maintenance or repair services.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Apr 2012 17:48:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=183656" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (5) TMI 629 - CESTAT, DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210221</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the service tax liability of the appellants for the period 01.07.03 to March 2005 under the maintenance and repairs service category. It found that the services provided by the appellants to Kota Thermal Power Station fell within the definition of maintenance or repair services, despite the appellants&#039; arguments that the contracts were rate contracts. The Tribunal set aside demands confirmed by the adjudicating authority for invoking a larger period but upheld demands within the limitation period. Penalties imposed on the appellants were also set aside due to their legitimate belief that they were not liable for service tax under maintenance or repair services.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210221</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>