<?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 667 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336022</link>
    <description>A composite turnkey contract for design, supply, testing, erection and commissioning could not be artificially split into separate taxable elements for service tax purposes. The Tribunal followed the settled position that, for the period prior to 01.06.2007, execution of a works contract could not be taxed under the other service categories invoked in the notice. The demand was therefore unsustainable, and the impugned order was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Dec 2016 14:24:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=451479" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (12) TMI 667 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336022</link>
      <description>A composite turnkey contract for design, supply, testing, erection and commissioning could not be artificially split into separate taxable elements for service tax purposes. The Tribunal followed the settled position that, for the period prior to 01.06.2007, execution of a works contract could not be taxed under the other service categories invoked in the notice. The demand was therefore unsustainable, and the impugned order was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336022</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>