<?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 (12) TMI 1110 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447426</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the order of the Adjudicating Authority, dismissing the revenue&#039;s appeal. It concluded that sub-contractors were not required to pay service tax for the period covered by the 1997 Circular if the main contractor had already discharged the tax. The Tribunal found the demand for the extended period to be time-barred, consistent with previous judgments, and thus maintained the decision to set aside the demand against the sub-contractor.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 26 Dec 2023 08:36:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=736817" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (12) TMI 1110 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447426</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the order of the Adjudicating Authority, dismissing the revenue&#039;s appeal. It concluded that sub-contractors were not required to pay service tax for the period covered by the 1997 Circular if the main contractor had already discharged the tax. The Tribunal found the demand for the extended period to be time-barred, consistent with previous judgments, and thus maintained the decision to set aside the demand against the sub-contractor.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447426</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>