<?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 (5) TMI 1000 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328019</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that thermal insulation is integral to the functioning of equipment and falls within the ambit of abatement under Notification No.1/2006-ST for erection, commissioning, and installation services. Despite the Department&#039;s argument that abatement applies only with the supply of plant, machinery, or equipment, the Tribunal found merit in the appellant&#039;s interpretation, granting a complete waiver of pre-deposit and staying the recovery of liabilities during the appeal. Additionally, the Tribunal accepted the appellant&#039;s contention that the demand was time-barred due to the absence of willful misstatement or suppression of facts, further supporting the decision in favor of the appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 02 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 May 2016 10:35:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=429353" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (5) TMI 1000 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328019</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that thermal insulation is integral to the functioning of equipment and falls within the ambit of abatement under Notification No.1/2006-ST for erection, commissioning, and installation services. Despite the Department&#039;s argument that abatement applies only with the supply of plant, machinery, or equipment, the Tribunal found merit in the appellant&#039;s interpretation, granting a complete waiver of pre-deposit and staying the recovery of liabilities during the appeal. Additionally, the Tribunal accepted the appellant&#039;s contention that the demand was time-barred due to the absence of willful misstatement or suppression of facts, further supporting the decision in favor of the appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328019</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>