<?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>2015 (2) TMI 96 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256096</link>
    <description>Electricity distribution-related management, maintenance, repair, erection, commissioning and installation services were treated as exempt up to 21.06.2010 under the notification issued under Section 11C of the Finance Act, 1994, and the Tribunal found no basis to tax the material component where the contract separately identified materials and services, VAT had been paid on materials, and there was no evidence of separate recovery of service tax from customers. Mere omission to cite the notification in ST-3 returns was held insufficient to deny the exemption where its applicability otherwise existed. On that basis, the appellant was held to have made out a prima facie case for unconditional stay.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 14 May 2016 12:57:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=375178" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (2) TMI 96 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256096</link>
      <description>Electricity distribution-related management, maintenance, repair, erection, commissioning and installation services were treated as exempt up to 21.06.2010 under the notification issued under Section 11C of the Finance Act, 1994, and the Tribunal found no basis to tax the material component where the contract separately identified materials and services, VAT had been paid on materials, and there was no evidence of separate recovery of service tax from customers. Mere omission to cite the notification in ST-3 returns was held insufficient to deny the exemption where its applicability otherwise existed. On that basis, the appellant was held to have made out a prima facie case for unconditional stay.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256096</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>