<?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>2025 (1) TMI 1151 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765087</link>
    <description>Tyre retreading activity was treated as a works contract where the record showed use of consumables purchased from sales tax registered dealers and materials used in execution had suffered sales tax; on that basis, it was not taxable as Management, Maintenance or Repair Service. The claim for abatement under Notification No. 12/2003-ST also formed part of the analysis. The extended period of limitation was held inapplicable because the available sales tax returns and claim did not establish suppression, fraud, or any comparable ground, and mere insufficiency of supporting evidence for abatement did not justify a longer limitation period. The demand was therefore set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 Jan 2025 13:57:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=791803" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (1) TMI 1151 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765087</link>
      <description>Tyre retreading activity was treated as a works contract where the record showed use of consumables purchased from sales tax registered dealers and materials used in execution had suffered sales tax; on that basis, it was not taxable as Management, Maintenance or Repair Service. The claim for abatement under Notification No. 12/2003-ST also formed part of the analysis. The extended period of limitation was held inapplicable because the available sales tax returns and claim did not establish suppression, fraud, or any comparable ground, and mere insufficiency of supporting evidence for abatement did not justify a longer limitation period. The demand was therefore set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765087</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>