<?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 (5) TMI 925 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791723</link>
    <description>Low side work and HVAC installation contracts were treated as works contracts because the execution involved supply and use of substantial materials such as piping, wiring and ducting, with VAT paid on the material component. The contracts did not become pure service arrangements merely because the main AC equipment was separately supplied. In the absence of evidence that the materials used were only incidental or trivial, the composite nature of labour and goods was retained, and transfer of property in goods during execution meant the service could not be taxed as a pure service contract. The Revenue challenge failed and the abatement was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 May 2026 09:09:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=902374" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (5) TMI 925 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791723</link>
      <description>Low side work and HVAC installation contracts were treated as works contracts because the execution involved supply and use of substantial materials such as piping, wiring and ducting, with VAT paid on the material component. The contracts did not become pure service arrangements merely because the main AC equipment was separately supplied. In the absence of evidence that the materials used were only incidental or trivial, the composite nature of labour and goods was retained, and transfer of property in goods during execution meant the service could not be taxed as a pure service contract. The Revenue challenge failed and the abatement was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791723</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>