<?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 (8) TMI 71 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346013</link>
    <description>Service tax on annual maintenance contracts entered into before 10.09.2004 was held to remain chargeable at the rate prevailing on the contract date, so the subsequent increase from 8% to 10% plus education cess did not apply. The Tribunal noted that the contracts were already in force and tax had been discharged on that basis; Notification No. 5/2004-ST was confined to cases where consideration was received before service was provided, which was not the factual position. As the taxable event was treated as arising when the contract was entered into and service commenced, no differential service tax was payable for the remaining contract period.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 26 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 01 Sep 2017 18:48:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=484046" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (8) TMI 71 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346013</link>
      <description>Service tax on annual maintenance contracts entered into before 10.09.2004 was held to remain chargeable at the rate prevailing on the contract date, so the subsequent increase from 8% to 10% plus education cess did not apply. The Tribunal noted that the contracts were already in force and tax had been discharged on that basis; Notification No. 5/2004-ST was confined to cases where consideration was received before service was provided, which was not the factual position. As the taxable event was treated as arising when the contract was entered into and service commenced, no differential service tax was payable for the remaining contract period.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346013</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>