<?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 (12) TMI 90 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351821</link>
    <description>Service tax on construction activities for the period before 1.6.2007 was held unsustainable because works contract service was not leviable for that earlier period, and the demand also failed where abatement under Notification No. 15/2004-ST was denied on the footing that the activity was finishing and completion work. The pre-1.6.2007 demand was therefore set aside. For the period after 1.6.2007, the service classification was treated as an interpretational dispute and the assessee accepted liability, so only limited re-quantification of the surviving demand was required. The penalties were set aside, and the matter was remanded only for quantification of the later-period liability.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 02 Dec 2017 10:08:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=498388" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (12) TMI 90 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351821</link>
      <description>Service tax on construction activities for the period before 1.6.2007 was held unsustainable because works contract service was not leviable for that earlier period, and the demand also failed where abatement under Notification No. 15/2004-ST was denied on the footing that the activity was finishing and completion work. The pre-1.6.2007 demand was therefore set aside. For the period after 1.6.2007, the service classification was treated as an interpretational dispute and the assessee accepted liability, so only limited re-quantification of the surviving demand was required. The penalties were set aside, and the matter was remanded only for quantification of the later-period liability.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351821</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>