<?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>2008 (9) TMI 39 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31281</link>
    <description>A composite turn-key contract cannot be vivisected to levy service tax separately on the engineering or design element. The analysis relies on earlier Tribunal decisions treating such contracts as indivisible works-type arrangements, so the consideration cannot be split for taxation of a segregated contractual component. On that basis, the Commissioner (Appeals) accepted that the design portion was not independently taxable by severing the contract. The appeal was rejected and the Commissioner (Appeals) order was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 Jan 2016 12:40:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=69930" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (9) TMI 39 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31281</link>
      <description>A composite turn-key contract cannot be vivisected to levy service tax separately on the engineering or design element. The analysis relies on earlier Tribunal decisions treating such contracts as indivisible works-type arrangements, so the consideration cannot be split for taxation of a segregated contractual component. On that basis, the Commissioner (Appeals) accepted that the design portion was not independently taxable by severing the contract. The appeal was rejected and the Commissioner (Appeals) order was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31281</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>