<?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>2022 (1) TMI 509 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417044</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner&#039;s decision, ruling that the Respondent correctly paid Service Tax on the service component of the contract. The Tribunal emphasized that the demand for Service Tax was invalidated due to the failure to provide the correct valuation option. The department&#039;s appeal was dismissed, affirming that the valuation mechanism allows for optional methods and deductions for the value of goods in works contracts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Dec 2022 12:20:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=667109" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (1) TMI 509 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417044</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner&#039;s decision, ruling that the Respondent correctly paid Service Tax on the service component of the contract. The Tribunal emphasized that the demand for Service Tax was invalidated due to the failure to provide the correct valuation option. The department&#039;s appeal was dismissed, affirming that the valuation mechanism allows for optional methods and deductions for the value of goods in works contracts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417044</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>