<?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 (10) TMI 395 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779599</link>
    <description>Tyre retreading was treated as service tax leviable only on the service component, with the value of materials used in execution excluded from the taxable base. The assessee was stated to have supported the deduction with a Chartered Accountant&#039;s certificate and to satisfy the conditions for Notification No. 12/2003-ST, so the material-value deduction and notification benefit were allowed. The alternative classification as works contract service was rejected because no contractual arrangement was shown and mere use of materials was insufficient. Penalties under the Finance Act were set aside because the controversy was primarily interpretational and the valuation claim was substantially accepted on record.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Oct 2025 08:54:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=857219" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (10) TMI 395 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779599</link>
      <description>Tyre retreading was treated as service tax leviable only on the service component, with the value of materials used in execution excluded from the taxable base. The assessee was stated to have supported the deduction with a Chartered Accountant&#039;s certificate and to satisfy the conditions for Notification No. 12/2003-ST, so the material-value deduction and notification benefit were allowed. The alternative classification as works contract service was rejected because no contractual arrangement was shown and mere use of materials was insufficient. Penalties under the Finance Act were set aside because the controversy was primarily interpretational and the valuation claim was substantially accepted on record.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779599</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>