<?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 436 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=440163</link>
    <description>Consulting engineer services relating to road construction in Jammu &amp; Kashmir were treated as provided in a non-taxable territory, and the exemption for services connected with road construction was applied, so the service tax demand was not sustainable. Cenvat credit could not be denied merely because the invoices did not bear the assessee&#039;s registered address, as the invoices contained the required particulars and the defect was procedural rather than substantive. The extended limitation period was held unavailable because regular returns were filed and no suppression with intent to evade tax was proved; the absence of such suppression also supported the view that penalty and extended limitation were unwarranted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 10 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Aug 2025 14:37:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=719261" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (7) TMI 436 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=440163</link>
      <description>Consulting engineer services relating to road construction in Jammu &amp; Kashmir were treated as provided in a non-taxable territory, and the exemption for services connected with road construction was applied, so the service tax demand was not sustainable. Cenvat credit could not be denied merely because the invoices did not bear the assessee&#039;s registered address, as the invoices contained the required particulars and the defect was procedural rather than substantive. The extended limitation period was held unavailable because regular returns were filed and no suppression with intent to evade tax was proved; the absence of such suppression also supported the view that penalty and extended limitation were unwarranted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=440163</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>