<?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 (4) TMI 1327 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464609</link>
    <description>Where goods are separately sold under documented contracts and subjected to VAT or sales tax, their value cannot be added to the taxable service portion, and exclusion is available under Notification No. 12/2003-Service Tax on proof of sale of goods. The contract records showed a composite arrangement involving supply, erection, installation and commissioning, so the demand could not be sustained under commercial or industrial construction service and the activity fell within works contract service for the relevant period. The dispute was interpretational and had been repeatedly scrutinised, so suppression or wilful misstatement was not established and the extended period of limitation was unavailable. The impugned orders were set aside and consequential relief followed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 06 Nov 2025 12:29:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=862784" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (4) TMI 1327 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464609</link>
      <description>Where goods are separately sold under documented contracts and subjected to VAT or sales tax, their value cannot be added to the taxable service portion, and exclusion is available under Notification No. 12/2003-Service Tax on proof of sale of goods. The contract records showed a composite arrangement involving supply, erection, installation and commissioning, so the demand could not be sustained under commercial or industrial construction service and the activity fell within works contract service for the relevant period. The dispute was interpretational and had been repeatedly scrutinised, so suppression or wilful misstatement was not established and the extended period of limitation was unavailable. The impugned orders were set aside and consequential relief followed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464609</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>