The case involved a dispute regarding the levy of service tax on ...

CESTAT ruled against service tax on penalties & deposits as consideration under u/s 66E(e). Appeal granted

June 19, 2024

Case Laws Service Tax AT

The case involved a dispute regarding the levy of service tax on liquidated damages, security deposit, earnest money deposit, and retention money. The Appellate Tribunal held that these amounts do not constitute consideration for tolerating an act under u/s 66E(e) of the Finance Act. The Tribunal cited a previous case to support its decision. Consequently, the appellant was deemed not liable to pay service tax on the forfeited amounts. The impugned order was found to lack merit and was set aside, resulting in the appeal being allowed.

View Source

← Previous Next →

The case involved a dispute regarding the levy of service tax on ...

CESTAT ruled against service tax on penalties & deposits as consideration under u/s 66E(e). Appeal granted

June 19, 2024

Case Laws Service Tax AT

You may also like:

Adjustment of excess service tax paid with subsequent service tax liability - case of Revenue is that Rule 6 (3) of Service Tax Rules, 1994 do not provide for such...

CESTAT adjudicated a service tax dispute involving contractual advances and service tax adjustments. The tribunal held that service tax is leviable only on actual...

CESTAT ruled in favor of appellant regarding service tax liability on GTA services during 2008-2013. The Tribunal determined service tax liability shifted to service...

Refund of services tax - input services received by the unit of the appellant established in SEZ - refund rejected for alleged non-compliance of several conditions - The...

Penalty recovered from contractors for not completing work within stipulated time does not constitute consideration for declared service u/s 66E(e) of Finance Act, 1994,...

CESTAT ruled that the Commissioner erred in confirming service tax demand on grounds not specified in the show cause notice after finding against the Department on the...

CESTAT ruled that Delayed Payment Charges (DPC) received by the appellant stockbroker from clients are not includible in the taxable value for service tax purposes. The...

CESTAT ruled that reimbursable expenses received by service providers alongside service fees are not subject to service tax, following SC's precedent in Intercontinental...

The CESTAT held that the appellant's services could not be classified as intermediary services for the period July 2012 to March 2014. As per Rule 3 of the Place of...

The Tribunal held that the appellant rightly issued credit notes to government entities that refused payment of consideration and service tax, allowing adjustment of...

Dispute regarding non-payment/short payment of service tax, tax demand and interest u/ss 73(2) and 75, penalties u/ss 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, and extended...

Refund claim of service tax paid on cancelled transactions - Post GST era - Rejection of refund under Rule 6(3) of Service Tax Rules read with Sec 142(5) of CGST Act -...

The CESTAT allowed the appeal concerning advisory services provided by appellant to JCB UK, determining these constituted export of services under Rule 6A of Service Tax...

The CESTAT held: The demand of service tax under 'site formation service' for June 2005 to May 2007 by culling out site formation charges from a composite mining...

Export of services or not - Reversal of Credit - The fundamental charge that the service recipients are ‘other establishments’ of service providers in terms of in terms...

Quick Updates: