<?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 485 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334467</link>
    <description>Separate invoicing for goods and services, payment of VAT on the goods component, and corresponding entries in the work order and balance sheet supported exclusion of the value of goods and materials sold from the taxable value under Notification No. 12/2003-ST. The notification applies where documentary proof identifies the value of goods sold, and the Revenue&#039;s allegation that the 80:20 split between goods and services was artificial failed for lack of documentary evidence or investigation material. The earlier factual finding that the bifurcation was reasonable was therefore sustained, and the assessee remained entitled to the notification benefit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 02 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 07 Apr 2017 16:45:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=447667" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (11) TMI 485 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334467</link>
      <description>Separate invoicing for goods and services, payment of VAT on the goods component, and corresponding entries in the work order and balance sheet supported exclusion of the value of goods and materials sold from the taxable value under Notification No. 12/2003-ST. The notification applies where documentary proof identifies the value of goods sold, and the Revenue&#039;s allegation that the 80:20 split between goods and services was artificial failed for lack of documentary evidence or investigation material. The earlier factual finding that the bifurcation was reasonable was therefore sustained, and the assessee remained entitled to the notification benefit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 02 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334467</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>