<?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 (12) TMI 232 - CESTAT, New Delhi</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219217</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the Revenue&#039;s position on jurisdiction and the divisibility of works contracts for taxation purposes. The claim for exemption under Notification 12/2003-ST was not admitted due to inconsistencies and lack of verification. The Tribunal directed a 50% pre-deposit for the admission of the appeal, with a stay on the collection of the remaining dues during the appeal&#039;s pendency.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Jan 2013 17:09:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=192587" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (12) TMI 232 - CESTAT, New Delhi</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219217</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the Revenue&#039;s position on jurisdiction and the divisibility of works contracts for taxation purposes. The claim for exemption under Notification 12/2003-ST was not admitted due to inconsistencies and lack of verification. The Tribunal directed a 50% pre-deposit for the admission of the appeal, with a stay on the collection of the remaining dues during the appeal&#039;s pendency.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219217</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>