<?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>2014 (2) TMI 1082 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244488</link>
    <description>Waiver of balance pre-deposit was considered in an appeal on valuation of composite works contracts and the availability of the composition option under the service tax valuation rules. The record showed that VAT had been paid on materials used in civil construction and service tax had already been discharged at 4% through the composition route for the civil works component. The Tribunal noted a prima facie force in the Revenue&#039;s objection that composite contracts for design, supply, erection, commissioning and installation could not be bifurcated under the applicable rules, while also noting payment under the same rule. The appellant was directed to deposit 20% of the tax demanded; on deposit, the balance demand, interest and penalties were waived and recovery stayed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 27 Feb 2014 12:56:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=347321" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (2) TMI 1082 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244488</link>
      <description>Waiver of balance pre-deposit was considered in an appeal on valuation of composite works contracts and the availability of the composition option under the service tax valuation rules. The record showed that VAT had been paid on materials used in civil construction and service tax had already been discharged at 4% through the composition route for the civil works component. The Tribunal noted a prima facie force in the Revenue&#039;s objection that composite contracts for design, supply, erection, commissioning and installation could not be bifurcated under the applicable rules, while also noting payment under the same rule. The appellant was directed to deposit 20% of the tax demanded; on deposit, the balance demand, interest and penalties were waived and recovery stayed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244488</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>