<?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 (11) TMI 1531 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183014</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, granting the 67% abatement benefit previously denied due to the non-inclusion of free supply material in the taxable service value. Additionally, the services provided to charitable organizations for constructing buildings were classified as falling under Commercial or Industrial Construction Services, rather than being deemed charitable per se. The Tribunal ordered a pre-deposit of Rs. 1,75,00,000 within 8 weeks to address the potential time-barred demand, with recovery of the remaining liability stayed pending compliance. Failure to make the pre-deposit would lead to the dismissal of the appeal. Compliance was required by a specified date.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 May 2016 08:41:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=429644" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (11) TMI 1531 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183014</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, granting the 67% abatement benefit previously denied due to the non-inclusion of free supply material in the taxable service value. Additionally, the services provided to charitable organizations for constructing buildings were classified as falling under Commercial or Industrial Construction Services, rather than being deemed charitable per se. The Tribunal ordered a pre-deposit of Rs. 1,75,00,000 within 8 weeks to address the potential time-barred demand, with recovery of the remaining liability stayed pending compliance. Failure to make the pre-deposit would lead to the dismissal of the appeal. Compliance was required by a specified date.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183014</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>