<?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 (11) TMI 949 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430525</link>
    <description>The appeal was disposed of with the Tribunal setting aside the demand for service tax on one-time premium/salami under renting of immovable property service and on the signature bonus under scientific or technical consultancy service. The demand under works contract services was upheld with the penalty set aside. The demand for service tax on consideration received from M/s PGVCL under business auxiliary services was set aside, as was the demand on rent income below the threshold exemption limit. However, the demand under the reverse charge mechanism on payments made to foreign entities was upheld. The penalty under Section 78 for failure to pay service tax on development charges was set aside. The matter regarding service tax under Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was remanded for fresh adjudication, as was the demand for Cenvat credit, requiring a detailed examination of each service&#039;s eligibility.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Nov 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Nov 2022 09:01:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=696456" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (11) TMI 949 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430525</link>
      <description>The appeal was disposed of with the Tribunal setting aside the demand for service tax on one-time premium/salami under renting of immovable property service and on the signature bonus under scientific or technical consultancy service. The demand under works contract services was upheld with the penalty set aside. The demand for service tax on consideration received from M/s PGVCL under business auxiliary services was set aside, as was the demand on rent income below the threshold exemption limit. However, the demand under the reverse charge mechanism on payments made to foreign entities was upheld. The penalty under Section 78 for failure to pay service tax on development charges was set aside. The matter regarding service tax under Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was remanded for fresh adjudication, as was the demand for Cenvat credit, requiring a detailed examination of each service&#039;s eligibility.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Nov 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430525</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>