<?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>2018 (3) TMI 2059 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464073</link>
    <description>Service tax demand under Commercial or Industrial Construction Services was found unsustainable because the appellant&#039;s own earlier case had already held that, if tax liability arose on the construction activities, it would arise only under Works Contract Services. Since the lower proceedings contained no allegation or demand under Works Contract Services, the prior tribunal reasoning governed the dispute and the demand was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Oct 2025 21:44:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=855854" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (3) TMI 2059 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464073</link>
      <description>Service tax demand under Commercial or Industrial Construction Services was found unsustainable because the appellant&#039;s own earlier case had already held that, if tax liability arose on the construction activities, it would arise only under Works Contract Services. Since the lower proceedings contained no allegation or demand under Works Contract Services, the prior tribunal reasoning governed the dispute and the demand was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464073</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>