<?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 (12) TMI 502 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371733</link>
    <description>Materials purchased in the service recipient&#039;s name and supplied at site for erection, commissioning and installation were held not to form part of the gross value of taxable services where the appellant neither purchased nor sold the goods to the recipient. Because the invoices showed the materials belonged to the recipient and were used in providing the service, their value could not be added to the taxable service value. The earlier remand on Notification No. 12/2003-ST was inapplicable on these facts, as it concerned goods sold to the recipient. The demand attributable to the Suzlon contract material value was therefore set aside, while the L&amp;T contract order remained undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 Dec 2018 09:38:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=546235" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (12) TMI 502 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371733</link>
      <description>Materials purchased in the service recipient&#039;s name and supplied at site for erection, commissioning and installation were held not to form part of the gross value of taxable services where the appellant neither purchased nor sold the goods to the recipient. Because the invoices showed the materials belonged to the recipient and were used in providing the service, their value could not be added to the taxable service value. The earlier remand on Notification No. 12/2003-ST was inapplicable on these facts, as it concerned goods sold to the recipient. The demand attributable to the Suzlon contract material value was therefore set aside, while the L&amp;T contract order remained undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371733</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>