<?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 (8) TMI 165 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=425926</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the services provided by the Appellant were part of indivisible works contracts and could not be classified under separate service categories as demanded. The demand under &quot;Commercial or Industrial Construction,&quot; &quot;Erection, Commissioning and Installation Services,&quot; and &quot;Site Formation Services&quot; was set aside. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief as per law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Aug 2022 08:32:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=687013" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (8) TMI 165 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=425926</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the services provided by the Appellant were part of indivisible works contracts and could not be classified under separate service categories as demanded. The demand under &quot;Commercial or Industrial Construction,&quot; &quot;Erection, Commissioning and Installation Services,&quot; and &quot;Site Formation Services&quot; was set aside. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief as per law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=425926</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>