<?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>2016 (2) TMI 486 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271781</link>
    <description>Construction of a college building for a public charitable trust, supported by approval from educational authorities and an approved building plan, was treated as construction for educational use rather than commercial or industrial use. The service recipient was a charitable trust, and the tax amount was not shown to have been collected from the recipient because it was adjusted through a credit note. Departmental circulars also supported exclusion of such educational or charitable construction from the taxable category. On these facts, the construction did not fall within commercial or industrial construction service and the refund of service tax paid was admissible.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 02 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 20 Sep 2016 15:43:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=416684" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (2) TMI 486 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271781</link>
      <description>Construction of a college building for a public charitable trust, supported by approval from educational authorities and an approved building plan, was treated as construction for educational use rather than commercial or industrial use. The service recipient was a charitable trust, and the tax amount was not shown to have been collected from the recipient because it was adjusted through a credit note. Departmental circulars also supported exclusion of such educational or charitable construction from the taxable category. On these facts, the construction did not fall within commercial or industrial construction service and the refund of service tax paid was admissible.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 02 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271781</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>