<?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>2008 (11) TMI 199 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34316</link>
    <description>A contract for manufacture, supply, erection, installation and commissioning of lifts and elevators was treated as a single composite arrangement covering both supply and installation. The agreement was found to be inseverable on its terms, so it could not be split into separate taxable and non-taxable components for service tax. Applying the principle that a composite contract cannot be vivisected where the contract itself is not severable, the levy could not be sustained on isolated elements of the transaction. The same reasoning supported acceptance of the assessee&#039;s claim that benefit under Notification No. 12/2003-ST could not be denied merely on invoicing requirements.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 13 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=72940" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (11) TMI 199 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34316</link>
      <description>A contract for manufacture, supply, erection, installation and commissioning of lifts and elevators was treated as a single composite arrangement covering both supply and installation. The agreement was found to be inseverable on its terms, so it could not be split into separate taxable and non-taxable components for service tax. Applying the principle that a composite contract cannot be vivisected where the contract itself is not severable, the levy could not be sustained on isolated elements of the transaction. The same reasoning supported acceptance of the assessee&#039;s claim that benefit under Notification No. 12/2003-ST could not be denied merely on invoicing requirements.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34316</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>