<?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>2009 (2) TMI 127 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33994</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant regarding the classification of soil testing and survey work, determining that these services should not be classified under Consulting Engineer Services prior to 16-6-2005. The liability for service tax on piling work on commercial buildings and residential complexes was upheld, while the liability for soil testing and survey work was limited from 16-6-2005 onwards. The appellant&#039;s claim of being time-barred for service tax on piling work was rejected, and deductions under Notification No. 17/2005-ST were allowed. The Tribunal also directed re-calculation of service tax based on amounts received and imposed interest on the re-quantified amount, remanding the case for reconsideration of penalties.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 02 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Sep 2009 12:22:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=72622" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (2) TMI 127 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33994</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant regarding the classification of soil testing and survey work, determining that these services should not be classified under Consulting Engineer Services prior to 16-6-2005. The liability for service tax on piling work on commercial buildings and residential complexes was upheld, while the liability for soil testing and survey work was limited from 16-6-2005 onwards. The appellant&#039;s claim of being time-barred for service tax on piling work was rejected, and deductions under Notification No. 17/2005-ST were allowed. The Tribunal also directed re-calculation of service tax based on amounts received and imposed interest on the re-quantified amount, remanding the case for reconsideration of penalties.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33994</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>