<?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>2026 (4) TMI 1357 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790288</link>
    <description>Composite contracts involving supply of materials, labour and integrated construction work were treated as works contracts and not taxed by vivisecting them into commercial or industrial construction service or erection, commissioning or installation service. For Rajendra Agricultural University, the taxable base was held to require re-quantification and to be confined to the separately agreed 8.5% agency charge, not the entire project cost. Extended limitation was not invocable absent wilful suppression or intent to evade, particularly where the assessee was a public sector undertaking and the dispute was largely classificatory or quantificatory. The CENVAT credit dispute was remanded for verification of invoices and supporting records within the normal period.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Apr 2026 09:45:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=898025" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (4) TMI 1357 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790288</link>
      <description>Composite contracts involving supply of materials, labour and integrated construction work were treated as works contracts and not taxed by vivisecting them into commercial or industrial construction service or erection, commissioning or installation service. For Rajendra Agricultural University, the taxable base was held to require re-quantification and to be confined to the separately agreed 8.5% agency charge, not the entire project cost. Extended limitation was not invocable absent wilful suppression or intent to evade, particularly where the assessee was a public sector undertaking and the dispute was largely classificatory or quantificatory. The CENVAT credit dispute was remanded for verification of invoices and supporting records within the normal period.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790288</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>