<?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>2017 (6) TMI 278 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344007</link>
    <description>Operation and maintenance of a power plant for electricity generation did not amount to Consulting Engineer Service because the operator was performing the plant&#039;s principal function, not giving technical advice or consultancy; the demand was set aside. The same arrangement was not taxable as Maintenance or Repair Service because generation of electricity was the dominant object of the contract and any maintenance element was merely incidental, so the charges for operating the plant could not be treated as taxable repair or maintenance services; that demand was also set aside. The Tribunal followed earlier decisions on identical operation-and-maintenance arrangements and allowed relief to the assessee on the substantive tax demands.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Aug 2017 18:30:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=471093" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (6) TMI 278 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344007</link>
      <description>Operation and maintenance of a power plant for electricity generation did not amount to Consulting Engineer Service because the operator was performing the plant&#039;s principal function, not giving technical advice or consultancy; the demand was set aside. The same arrangement was not taxable as Maintenance or Repair Service because generation of electricity was the dominant object of the contract and any maintenance element was merely incidental, so the charges for operating the plant could not be treated as taxable repair or maintenance services; that demand was also set aside. The Tribunal followed earlier decisions on identical operation-and-maintenance arrangements and allowed relief to the assessee on the substantive tax demands.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344007</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>