<?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>2018 (1) TMI 1129 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354393</link>
    <description>Service tax demand on photographic services was held time-barred because the taxability of including materials in the taxable value was debatable and marked by conflicting decisions during the relevant period. In that setting, the Tribunal found no basis to invoke the extended limitation period in the absence of suppression justifying such action. The assessee succeeded on limitation, the demand was not sustained, and the impugned order was set aside with consequential relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 20 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 27 Jan 2018 08:17:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=506178" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (1) TMI 1129 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354393</link>
      <description>Service tax demand on photographic services was held time-barred because the taxability of including materials in the taxable value was debatable and marked by conflicting decisions during the relevant period. In that setting, the Tribunal found no basis to invoke the extended limitation period in the absence of suppression justifying such action. The assessee succeeded on limitation, the demand was not sustained, and the impugned order was set aside with consequential relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354393</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>