<?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 (11) TMI 312 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445421</link>
    <description>Flight training conducted under DGCA approval, with regulated syllabus, examinations and certification, was treated as coaching or training leading to a qualification recognised by law; the levy under commercial coaching or training services was therefore unsustainable both before and after 01.07.2012, including under the negative list regime in Section 66D(l). For management, maintenance and repair services relating to 2005-2007, repair activity could arise even on an oral arrangement and the levy was otherwise supportable on merits, but the extended period failed because there was no established suppression with intent to evade tax. The service tax demand was thus set aside on merits for training and on limitation for repair.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 14 Nov 2025 14:54:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=731571" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (11) TMI 312 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445421</link>
      <description>Flight training conducted under DGCA approval, with regulated syllabus, examinations and certification, was treated as coaching or training leading to a qualification recognised by law; the levy under commercial coaching or training services was therefore unsustainable both before and after 01.07.2012, including under the negative list regime in Section 66D(l). For management, maintenance and repair services relating to 2005-2007, repair activity could arise even on an oral arrangement and the levy was otherwise supportable on merits, but the extended period failed because there was no established suppression with intent to evade tax. The service tax demand was thus set aside on merits for training and on limitation for repair.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445421</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>