<?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 (12) TMI 661 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=431544</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the decision to reject the appellant&#039;s refund claim for service tax paid during 2015-16 on works contract services provided to the Government. It was determined that the appellant was not eligible for exemption under Section 102 of the Finance Act, 1994, as the contract was signed after the specified date of 01.03.2015. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of contract acceptance date over the date of receiving the tender, stating that the contract must be entered into before the specified date for exemption eligibility. The appeal was dismissed based on the strict requirement of entering the contract before the cutoff date for service tax exemption.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 14 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Dec 2022 09:39:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=698756" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (12) TMI 661 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=431544</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the decision to reject the appellant&#039;s refund claim for service tax paid during 2015-16 on works contract services provided to the Government. It was determined that the appellant was not eligible for exemption under Section 102 of the Finance Act, 1994, as the contract was signed after the specified date of 01.03.2015. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of contract acceptance date over the date of receiving the tender, stating that the contract must be entered into before the specified date for exemption eligibility. The appeal was dismissed based on the strict requirement of entering the contract before the cutoff date for service tax exemption.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=431544</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>