<?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>2012 (5) TMI 263 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213354</link>
    <description>Partial waiver of pre-deposit was granted in a CESTAT interim order after the Tribunal examined prima facie case on recovery of duty demands. It did not accept the contention that the activity was taxable only as works contract for the relevant period, but found prima facie merit in the plea that a substantial sum had already been paid after audit objection, raising possible duplication of demand. It also accepted prima facie that duty liability, including the value of free supply materials, had been discharged in respect of two parties, while finding no sufficient basis for exclusion of such value for the others. Limitation was not found prima facie to assist the appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 19 May 2012 07:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=186755" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (5) TMI 263 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213354</link>
      <description>Partial waiver of pre-deposit was granted in a CESTAT interim order after the Tribunal examined prima facie case on recovery of duty demands. It did not accept the contention that the activity was taxable only as works contract for the relevant period, but found prima facie merit in the plea that a substantial sum had already been paid after audit objection, raising possible duplication of demand. It also accepted prima facie that duty liability, including the value of free supply materials, had been discharged in respect of two parties, while finding no sufficient basis for exclusion of such value for the others. Limitation was not found prima facie to assist the appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213354</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>