<?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 (9) TMI 91 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366355</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by the appellants, ruling that their activity of laying interlocking paver blocks and approach roads did not constitute taxable construction services for commercial or industrial buildings. The decision was based on the lack of alignment between the impugned order&#039;s findings and the provisions of the law and Circular No.B1/6/2005-TRU. The judgment emphasized the importance of segregating activities in construction contracts to determine service tax liability accurately.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 31 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 01 Sep 2018 18:07:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=532972" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (9) TMI 91 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366355</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by the appellants, ruling that their activity of laying interlocking paver blocks and approach roads did not constitute taxable construction services for commercial or industrial buildings. The decision was based on the lack of alignment between the impugned order&#039;s findings and the provisions of the law and Circular No.B1/6/2005-TRU. The judgment emphasized the importance of segregating activities in construction contracts to determine service tax liability accurately.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 31 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366355</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>