<?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 (9) TMI 183 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=442561</link>
    <description>Composite works contract involving supply of materials and construction cannot be taxed as a service contract simpliciter under a different head unless the notice and adjudication proceed under the proper charging provision. On that basis, the demand for the pre-30.06.2012 period under commercial or industrial construction service was set aside, as the construction was also not shown to be for commercial or industrial use. For the post-30.06.2012 period, the admitted service tax liability already accepted and paid in relation to BSNL work was retained, while the balance demand and penalty were deleted because the penalty followed the fate of the substantive demand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Sep 2023 08:39:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=725108" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (9) TMI 183 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=442561</link>
      <description>Composite works contract involving supply of materials and construction cannot be taxed as a service contract simpliciter under a different head unless the notice and adjudication proceed under the proper charging provision. On that basis, the demand for the pre-30.06.2012 period under commercial or industrial construction service was set aside, as the construction was also not shown to be for commercial or industrial use. For the post-30.06.2012 period, the admitted service tax liability already accepted and paid in relation to BSNL work was retained, while the balance demand and penalty were deleted because the penalty followed the fate of the substantive demand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=442561</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>