<?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 (3) TMI 1004 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357301</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeals by remanding the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for further scrutiny and verification of the sub-contractors&#039; claims for refund of service tax paid on construction services. The decision emphasized the necessity of establishing the provision of works contract services between sub-contractors and main contractors to qualify for a refund, particularly in situations involving retrospective exemptions and compliance with relevant legislative provisions and notifications.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 12 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 20 Mar 2018 14:51:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=513873" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (3) TMI 1004 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357301</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeals by remanding the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for further scrutiny and verification of the sub-contractors&#039; claims for refund of service tax paid on construction services. The decision emphasized the necessity of establishing the provision of works contract services between sub-contractors and main contractors to qualify for a refund, particularly in situations involving retrospective exemptions and compliance with relevant legislative provisions and notifications.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357301</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>