<?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 (6) TMI 213 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213893</link>
    <description>The dispute concerned whether activities connected with construction of telecommunication towers, including site clearing, de-watering, sand filling in plinth and waste disposal, could be segregated and classified as site formation and allied services for service tax and penalty purposes, or treated as part of construction service for abatement under the exemption notifications. The Tribunal found those activities to be incidental and ancillary to the main construction contract, and held that the separate taxable classification was not sustainable even at the prima facie stage. On that basis, the appellants were granted waiver of pre-deposit and unconditional stay; limitation was not examined.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Jun 2012 08:39:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=187293" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (6) TMI 213 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213893</link>
      <description>The dispute concerned whether activities connected with construction of telecommunication towers, including site clearing, de-watering, sand filling in plinth and waste disposal, could be segregated and classified as site formation and allied services for service tax and penalty purposes, or treated as part of construction service for abatement under the exemption notifications. The Tribunal found those activities to be incidental and ancillary to the main construction contract, and held that the separate taxable classification was not sustainable even at the prima facie stage. On that basis, the appellants were granted waiver of pre-deposit and unconditional stay; limitation was not examined.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213893</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>