<?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 (12) TMI 1058 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269754</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling that the service provided by the appellant constituted works contract service, not Consulting Engineer Service. The decision was based on the comprehensive nature of the work undertaken by the appellant on a turnkey basis, aligning more with works contract service. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant&#039;s reliance on legal precedents and the definition of consulting engineer during the relevant period, ultimately concluding that the impugned demand was not sustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 May 2016 16:29:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=409890" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (12) TMI 1058 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269754</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling that the service provided by the appellant constituted works contract service, not Consulting Engineer Service. The decision was based on the comprehensive nature of the work undertaken by the appellant on a turnkey basis, aligning more with works contract service. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant&#039;s reliance on legal precedents and the definition of consulting engineer during the relevant period, ultimately concluding that the impugned demand was not sustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269754</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>