<?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 (11) TMI 1227 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762241</link>
    <description>Contract labour supplied for packing, loading, unloading, housekeeping and allied work at the recipient&#039;s premises was treated as manpower recruitment or supply service because the agreements showed the recipient&#039;s manpower requirement, while the appellant remained responsible for wages, labour law compliances and licensing. Under Notification No. 30/2012-ST, as amended, the tax liability for such manpower supply services shifted to the recipient under reverse charge. The record further showed that the recipient-pharma entities had already discharged service tax on the same activity and produced challans and certificates. The service tax demand against the appellant was therefore unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 28 Nov 2024 07:48:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=779502" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (11) TMI 1227 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762241</link>
      <description>Contract labour supplied for packing, loading, unloading, housekeeping and allied work at the recipient&#039;s premises was treated as manpower recruitment or supply service because the agreements showed the recipient&#039;s manpower requirement, while the appellant remained responsible for wages, labour law compliances and licensing. Under Notification No. 30/2012-ST, as amended, the tax liability for such manpower supply services shifted to the recipient under reverse charge. The record further showed that the recipient-pharma entities had already discharged service tax on the same activity and produced challans and certificates. The service tax demand against the appellant was therefore unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762241</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>