https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329531 The High Court set aside the service tax demand for construction service, citing a circular clarifying the activity as a works contract. The Court allowed a 67% abatement for the value of service and dismissed claims for immunity to service tax. It directed a pre-deposit based on the Finance Act, 1994, rejecting a request for unconditional waiver as a dilatory tactic. The Court emphasized compliance with pre-deposit requirements, warning of appeal dismissal for non-compliance. The CESTAT upheld the pre-deposit amount, stressing adherence to legal procedures for appeal continuation. en-us Mon, 13 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 03 Jul 2016 23:06:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329531 The High Court set aside the service tax demand for construction service, citing a circular clarifying the activity as a works contract. The Court allowed a 67% abatement for the value of service and dismissed claims for immunity to service tax. It directed a pre-deposit based on the Finance Act, 1994, rejecting a request for unconditional waiver as a dilatory tactic. The Court emphasized compliance with pre-deposit requirements, warning of appeal dismissal for non-compliance. The CESTAT upheld the pre-deposit amount, stressing adherence to legal procedures for appeal continuation. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 13 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329531