<?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 (7) TMI 362 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=440089</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the sub-contractor is liable to pay service tax even if the main contractor has already paid it. However, the demand for service tax was deemed barred by limitation as the extended period of limitation was found inapplicable. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the entire demand, allowing the appeal on the ground of limitation and providing consequential relief as per law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 Jul 2023 07:53:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=719060" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (7) TMI 362 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=440089</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the sub-contractor is liable to pay service tax even if the main contractor has already paid it. However, the demand for service tax was deemed barred by limitation as the extended period of limitation was found inapplicable. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the entire demand, allowing the appeal on the ground of limitation and providing consequential relief as per law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=440089</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>