<?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 (12) TMI 33 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335388</link>
    <description>Pre-commissioning civil and allied work carried out for petrol pump projects, where pumps and related equipment were supplied by the customer, was held not to amount to taxable erection, commissioning or installation service or commercial and industrial construction service. Free-supply items such as pumps and tanks were excluded from the taxable value, and the assessee was held entitled to the related notification benefit. On limitation, the extended period was rejected because mere non-disclosure, especially after departmental awareness through audit, did not establish positive suppression. The demand was therefore time-barred and the impugned order was set aside with consequential relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Sep 2017 12:59:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=450171" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (12) TMI 33 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335388</link>
      <description>Pre-commissioning civil and allied work carried out for petrol pump projects, where pumps and related equipment were supplied by the customer, was held not to amount to taxable erection, commissioning or installation service or commercial and industrial construction service. Free-supply items such as pumps and tanks were excluded from the taxable value, and the assessee was held entitled to the related notification benefit. On limitation, the extended period was rejected because mere non-disclosure, especially after departmental awareness through audit, did not establish positive suppression. The demand was therefore time-barred and the impugned order was set aside with consequential relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335388</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>