<?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 (5) TMI 986 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360422</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the demand for service tax before 1.6.2007 due to the composite nature of contracts and lack of evidence of willful suppression. For the period after 1.6.2007, the demand was ruled as time-barred, with services to government agencies deemed not subject to service tax. The demand for cleaning services was confirmed, and penalties were mostly set aside except for one imposed under Section 77.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 May 2018 05:54:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=520597" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (5) TMI 986 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360422</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the demand for service tax before 1.6.2007 due to the composite nature of contracts and lack of evidence of willful suppression. For the period after 1.6.2007, the demand was ruled as time-barred, with services to government agencies deemed not subject to service tax. The demand for cleaning services was confirmed, and penalties were mostly set aside except for one imposed under Section 77.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360422</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>