<?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>2023 (11) TMI 1444 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468725</link>
    <description>Where a composite contract separately identifies the supply of goods and the provision of services, and the records show VAT/CST payment on the goods, the goods component is excludible from the taxable service value under Notification No. 12/2003-S.T. The exemption applies on documentary proof of sale and is not denied merely because the recipient may have taken credit. On limitation, a service tax demand on a sub-contractor could not attract the extended period where the levy was under genuine legal dispute, supported by conflicting circulars and judicial views, and there was no suppression, fraud, misstatement or wilful evasion. The demand was therefore time-barred.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 May 2026 11:49:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=902732" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (11) TMI 1444 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468725</link>
      <description>Where a composite contract separately identifies the supply of goods and the provision of services, and the records show VAT/CST payment on the goods, the goods component is excludible from the taxable service value under Notification No. 12/2003-S.T. The exemption applies on documentary proof of sale and is not denied merely because the recipient may have taken credit. On limitation, a service tax demand on a sub-contractor could not attract the extended period where the levy was under genuine legal dispute, supported by conflicting circulars and judicial views, and there was no suppression, fraud, misstatement or wilful evasion. The demand was therefore time-barred.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468725</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>