<?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 (9) TMI 634 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332373</link>
    <description>Work contract service became taxable only from 1.6.2007, so no service tax liability arose on a contract entered in April 2007 before that date. The text also states that tax for the period after 1.6.2007 had already been discharged correctly under the composite scheme, leaving no basis for a differential demand. On that basis, the demand for tax, interest, and penalty was treated as unsustainable and set aside in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 Sep 2016 11:17:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=441248" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (9) TMI 634 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332373</link>
      <description>Work contract service became taxable only from 1.6.2007, so no service tax liability arose on a contract entered in April 2007 before that date. The text also states that tax for the period after 1.6.2007 had already been discharged correctly under the composite scheme, leaving no basis for a differential demand. On that basis, the demand for tax, interest, and penalty was treated as unsustainable and set aside in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332373</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>