<?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 552 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352283</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the Service Tax liability on the production and supply of readymix concrete (RMC) by the appellants was unsustainable as it cannot be taxed under construction services. Similarly, the construction of a Hostel for a Medical College and apartments for Army personnel was deemed non-taxable as it was for personal use. However, the Tribunal found the appellants liable for Service Tax on landscaping horticultural works and construction of parking facilities under property management and maintenance services. Penalties were set aside, and the demand was limited to the normal period without justification for invoking the extended period.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 Dec 2017 09:12:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=499385" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (12) TMI 552 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352283</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the Service Tax liability on the production and supply of readymix concrete (RMC) by the appellants was unsustainable as it cannot be taxed under construction services. Similarly, the construction of a Hostel for a Medical College and apartments for Army personnel was deemed non-taxable as it was for personal use. However, the Tribunal found the appellants liable for Service Tax on landscaping horticultural works and construction of parking facilities under property management and maintenance services. Penalties were set aside, and the demand was limited to the normal period without justification for invoking the extended period.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352283</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>