<?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 (11) TMI 196 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334178</link>
    <description>Erection, installation and commissioning of textile machinery was treated as the operative service, not consulting engineer service, because the latter covers consultancy rather than physical execution of installation work. The analysis also notes that Board circulars clarified that erection, installation and commissioning charges were outside consulting engineer service, and that the later circular superseded the earlier clarification. As the specific taxable entry for erection, installation and commissioning came into force only from 01.07.2003, the text concludes that no levy could be sustained for the earlier period and the demand was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Mar 2018 14:37:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=446814" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (11) TMI 196 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334178</link>
      <description>Erection, installation and commissioning of textile machinery was treated as the operative service, not consulting engineer service, because the latter covers consultancy rather than physical execution of installation work. The analysis also notes that Board circulars clarified that erection, installation and commissioning charges were outside consulting engineer service, and that the later circular superseded the earlier clarification. As the specific taxable entry for erection, installation and commissioning came into force only from 01.07.2003, the text concludes that no levy could be sustained for the earlier period and the demand was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334178</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>