<?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>2024 (7) TMI 1256 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756036</link>
    <description>Service tax demands on construction services required fresh examination where taxability depended on whether the contracts were composite and whether the claimed exemptions or abatements applied. For the period before 30.06.2012, the Tribunal noted settled decisions on construction of educational institutions and held that the factual foundation needed reconsideration, so the demand was remanded for fresh adjudication. For 01.07.2012 to 31.03.2013, denial of abatement and treatment of the contracts as non-composite were set aside because the documentary basis on material use and VAT payment required further proof. The impugned order was therefore set aside and the appellant was given an opportunity to adduce evidence and be heard.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 25 Jul 2024 15:09:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=761726" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (7) TMI 1256 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756036</link>
      <description>Service tax demands on construction services required fresh examination where taxability depended on whether the contracts were composite and whether the claimed exemptions or abatements applied. For the period before 30.06.2012, the Tribunal noted settled decisions on construction of educational institutions and held that the factual foundation needed reconsideration, so the demand was remanded for fresh adjudication. For 01.07.2012 to 31.03.2013, denial of abatement and treatment of the contracts as non-composite were set aside because the documentary basis on material use and VAT payment required further proof. The impugned order was therefore set aside and the appellant was given an opportunity to adduce evidence and be heard.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756036</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>