<?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 (4) TMI 1041 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358930</link>
    <description>Where skilled personnel are deputed to work under the client&#039;s control and allocation on a man-day basis, the arrangement is taxable as manpower supply or recruitment agency service, even if the contracts refer to deliverables or quality standards. The SEZ-related service tax claim required factual verification under the SEZ framework and exemption notification, so that issue was remanded for de novo consideration on the documents produced and any permitted additional material. A later demand on the TDS component for an overlapping period was not sustainable because it could have been raised earlier, and the penalties were deleted as the dispute was essentially interpretational.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Jul 2019 12:50:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=517534" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (4) TMI 1041 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358930</link>
      <description>Where skilled personnel are deputed to work under the client&#039;s control and allocation on a man-day basis, the arrangement is taxable as manpower supply or recruitment agency service, even if the contracts refer to deliverables or quality standards. The SEZ-related service tax claim required factual verification under the SEZ framework and exemption notification, so that issue was remanded for de novo consideration on the documents produced and any permitted additional material. A later demand on the TDS component for an overlapping period was not sustainable because it could have been raised earlier, and the penalties were deleted as the dispute was essentially interpretational.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358930</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>