<?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>2023 (1) TMI 991 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=433244</link>
    <description>Separately identifiable material value supported by invoices, books of account, audited records and VAT returns could not be denied for service tax valuation where the recipient accepted the bifurcation and the department failed to disprove it. A contract involving supply of material and provision of service was treated as a composite works contract; on that basis, the activity was not taxable for the period before 01.06.2007, and for the later period the demand could not survive where tax had already been paid on a higher value than the composite-contract basis. The available abatements under the relevant notifications were also held inapplicable to sustain the demand, as tax had been paid on a value exceeding the concessional benchmark.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 23 Jan 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2023 08:29:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=702675" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (1) TMI 991 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=433244</link>
      <description>Separately identifiable material value supported by invoices, books of account, audited records and VAT returns could not be denied for service tax valuation where the recipient accepted the bifurcation and the department failed to disprove it. A contract involving supply of material and provision of service was treated as a composite works contract; on that basis, the activity was not taxable for the period before 01.06.2007, and for the later period the demand could not survive where tax had already been paid on a higher value than the composite-contract basis. The available abatements under the relevant notifications were also held inapplicable to sustain the demand, as tax had been paid on a value exceeding the concessional benchmark.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Jan 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=433244</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>