<?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>2019 (7) TMI 59 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=382363</link>
    <description>The appeals were related to the classification of services provided, taxability of construction activities, valuation of taxable services, applicability of service tax on works contracts, invocation of extended period of limitation, and imposition of penalties. The Tribunal upheld the classification of services under &quot;Construction of Complex Services&quot; and the valuation method based on gross receipts. It held that service tax was applicable on construction activities prior to agreements with buyers and penalties were justified for non-compliance. The appeal of Appellant 1 was dismissed, while the appeal of Appellant 2 was disposed of with modifications to the tax and penalty demands.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 Jan 2020 15:53:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=577281" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (7) TMI 59 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=382363</link>
      <description>The appeals were related to the classification of services provided, taxability of construction activities, valuation of taxable services, applicability of service tax on works contracts, invocation of extended period of limitation, and imposition of penalties. The Tribunal upheld the classification of services under &quot;Construction of Complex Services&quot; and the valuation method based on gross receipts. It held that service tax was applicable on construction activities prior to agreements with buyers and penalties were justified for non-compliance. The appeal of Appellant 1 was dismissed, while the appeal of Appellant 2 was disposed of with modifications to the tax and penalty demands.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=382363</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>