{"id":236319,"date":"2020-09-26T11:02:06","date_gmt":"2020-09-26T05:32:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=236319"},"modified":"2020-10-23T13:54:52","modified_gmt":"2020-10-23T08:24:52","slug":"cestat-service-tax-penalty-of-rs10383141-set-aside-completely-tribunal-allowed-appeal","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/09\/26\/cestat-service-tax-penalty-of-rs10383141-set-aside-completely-tribunal-allowed-appeal\/","title":{"rendered":"CESTAT | Service Tax Penalty of Rs 1,03,83,141 set aside completely; Tribunal allowed appeal"},"content":{"rendered":"

Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): <\/strong>A Division Bench of Anil Choudhary (Judicial Member) and P. Venkata Subba Rao (Technical Member), allowed an appeal which was filed on being aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals).<\/p>\n

The appellant is registered with the Service Tax Department and was engaged in the business of civil construction classifiable under \u2018Works Contract Services\u2019. During verification of the records and accounts maintained by the appellant and on reconciliation with the ST-3 returns filed by the appellant, it appeared that the appellant had not paid service tax on some part of their turnover during the period 2011-12 to 2014-15 particularly in respect of service provided to organizations like Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation (AP GENCO), Andhra Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation (APTDC), etc. It further appeared that in respect of service rendered the recipient(s) did not fall under the category of Government\/ local authority\/ Government authority. The show-cause notice was adjudicated on the contest and the aforementioned demands were confirmed along with penalty of Rs 1,03,83,141\/- under Section 78 of the Act and a further penalty of Rs 10,000\/ under Section 77(2) of the Finance Act, 1994. Aggrieved by which the appellant had filed an appeal with the Commissioner (Appeals) who had dismissed the appeal but had reduced the penalty. Thus, the instant appeal was filed.<\/p>\n

The Tribunal while allowing the appeal explained that admittedly all the companies \/ Corporations have been established by the Government of Andhra Pradesh under the various Acts and \/or \u2018Government order\u2019, as aforementioned and thus held that the appellant had provided service to Governmental authority. Thus, the service recipients were covered under sub-clause (i) of clause (5), of the definition of the term \u2018Govt. Authority\u2019, in Notification No. 25\/2012-ST, as amended by Notification No. 2\/2014-ST (by way of substitution). Accordingly, the appellant is entitled to exemption and the demand of Rs 97,63,710 is set aside. Further, in the second issue, it was found that the construction of flats under the \u2018development agreement\u2019 with the landowner by the appellant is on principal to principal basis. In such a transaction, there is neither any element of service provided to the landowner, nor any element of sale, thus, the Tribunal held that the service tax was not imposable setting aside the demand of Rs 5,55,458\/-. Lastly, in the third issue, the Tribunal held that the appellant had already provided the service as well as raised the invoice before the due date. Further, admittedly appellant had not given the option for payment of tax as per the date of receipt of consideration. Thus, the Tribunal held that demand of tax, relying on Rule 11 of Point of Taxation Rules was bad, setting aside the penalty of Rs 63,973. [Krishi Constructions (P) Ltd. v. Commr. of Central Tax, 2020 SCC OnLine CESTAT 199<\/b><\/a>, decided on 22-09-2020]<\/p>\n

\n

Suchita Shukla, Editorial Assistant has put this story together<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): A Division Bench of Anil Choudhary (Judicial Member) and P. Venkata Subba Rao (Technical <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":201689,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[6651,43578,2627,43579,18281,2621],"class_list":["post-236319","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-cestat","tag-landowner","tag-Penalty","tag-service-tax-penalty","tag-show-cause-notice","tag-Tax"],"yoast_head":"\nCESTAT | Service Tax Penalty of Rs 1,03,83,141 set aside completely; Tribunal allowed appeal | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/09\/26\/cestat-service-tax-penalty-of-rs10383141-set-aside-completely-tribunal-allowed-appeal\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"CESTAT | Service Tax Penalty of Rs 1,03,83,141 set aside completely; Tribunal allowed appeal\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): A Division Bench of Anil Choudhary (Judicial Member) and P. Venkata Subba Rao (Technical\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/09\/26\/cestat-service-tax-penalty-of-rs10383141-set-aside-completely-tribunal-allowed-appeal\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2020-09-26T05:32:06+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2020-10-23T08:24:52+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"2 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/09\/26\/cestat-service-tax-penalty-of-rs10383141-set-aside-completely-tribunal-allowed-appeal\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/09\/26\/cestat-service-tax-penalty-of-rs10383141-set-aside-completely-tribunal-allowed-appeal\/\",\"name\":\"CESTAT | Service Tax Penalty of Rs 1,03,83,141 set aside completely; Tribunal allowed appeal | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/09\/26\/cestat-service-tax-penalty-of-rs10383141-set-aside-completely-tribunal-allowed-appeal\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/09\/26\/cestat-service-tax-penalty-of-rs10383141-set-aside-completely-tribunal-allowed-appeal\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2020-09-26T05:32:06+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2020-10-23T08:24:52+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/09\/26\/cestat-service-tax-penalty-of-rs10383141-set-aside-completely-tribunal-allowed-appeal\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/09\/26\/cestat-service-tax-penalty-of-rs10383141-set-aside-completely-tribunal-allowed-appeal\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/09\/26\/cestat-service-tax-penalty-of-rs10383141-set-aside-completely-tribunal-allowed-appeal\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg\",\"width\":1330,\"height\":887},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/09\/26\/cestat-service-tax-penalty-of-rs10383141-set-aside-completely-tribunal-allowed-appeal\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"CESTAT | Service Tax Penalty of Rs 1,03,83,141 set aside completely; Tribunal allowed appeal\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"CESTAT | Service Tax Penalty of Rs 1,03,83,141 set aside completely; Tribunal allowed appeal | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/09\/26\/cestat-service-tax-penalty-of-rs10383141-set-aside-completely-tribunal-allowed-appeal\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"CESTAT | Service Tax Penalty of Rs 1,03,83,141 set aside completely; Tribunal allowed appeal","og_description":"Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): A Division Bench of Anil Choudhary (Judicial Member) and P. Venkata Subba Rao (Technical","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/09\/26\/cestat-service-tax-penalty-of-rs10383141-set-aside-completely-tribunal-allowed-appeal\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2020-09-26T05:32:06+00:00","article_modified_time":"2020-10-23T08:24:52+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"2 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/09\/26\/cestat-service-tax-penalty-of-rs10383141-set-aside-completely-tribunal-allowed-appeal\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/09\/26\/cestat-service-tax-penalty-of-rs10383141-set-aside-completely-tribunal-allowed-appeal\/","name":"CESTAT | Service Tax Penalty of Rs 1,03,83,141 set aside completely; Tribunal allowed appeal | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/09\/26\/cestat-service-tax-penalty-of-rs10383141-set-aside-completely-tribunal-allowed-appeal\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/09\/26\/cestat-service-tax-penalty-of-rs10383141-set-aside-completely-tribunal-allowed-appeal\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg","datePublished":"2020-09-26T05:32:06+00:00","dateModified":"2020-10-23T08:24:52+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/09\/26\/cestat-service-tax-penalty-of-rs10383141-set-aside-completely-tribunal-allowed-appeal\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/09\/26\/cestat-service-tax-penalty-of-rs10383141-set-aside-completely-tribunal-allowed-appeal\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/09\/26\/cestat-service-tax-penalty-of-rs10383141-set-aside-completely-tribunal-allowed-appeal\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg","width":1330,"height":887},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/09\/26\/cestat-service-tax-penalty-of-rs10383141-set-aside-completely-tribunal-allowed-appeal\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"CESTAT | Service Tax Penalty of Rs 1,03,83,141 set aside completely; Tribunal allowed appeal"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":271192,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/05\/cestat-sets-aside-penalty-on-umed-bhawan-palace-for-delay-in-service-tax-situation-found-revenue-neutral\/","url_meta":{"origin":236319,"position":0},"title":"CESTAT sets aside penalty on Umed Bhawan Palace for delay in service tax; Situation found revenue neutral","author":"Editor","date":"August 5, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): Anil Choudhary (Judicial Member) allowed an appeal which was filed involving the question of as to whether penalty under Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994 was rightly imposed. Appellant is rendering service of accommodation in hotel and restaurant service. Pursuant to audit,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/CESTATNew-Logo.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/CESTATNew-Logo.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/CESTATNew-Logo.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/CESTATNew-Logo.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/CESTATNew-Logo.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":226982,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/03\/13\/cestat-benefit-of-s-80-finance-act-1994-allowed-to-assessee-who-paid-major-portion-of-tax-liability-before-issue-of-show-cause-notice\/","url_meta":{"origin":236319,"position":1},"title":"CESTAT | Benefit of S. 80, Finance Act, 1994 allowed to assessee who paid major portion of tax liability before issue of show cause notice","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"March 13, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): A Division Bench of Sulekha Beevi (Judicial Member) and Anil G. Shakkarwar (Technical Member) allowed an appeal filed aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner. The appellants, who were engaged in execution of construction services, were issued Show Cause Notice dated 07-10-2010\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":268452,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/06\/15\/whether-the-credit-availed-by-bank-on-service-tax-paid-for-insuring-deposits-eligible-for-cenvat-credit-or-not-cestat-answers\/","url_meta":{"origin":236319,"position":2},"title":"Whether the credit availed by bank on service tax paid for insuring deposits, eligible for CENVAT Credit or not? CESTAT answers","author":"Editor","date":"June 15, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): The coram of Sulekha Beevi C.S. (Judicial Member) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) allowed an appeal which was filed aggrieved by the order of the original authority confirming the demand interest and imposed penalty, including a separate penalty on the Former\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/CESTATNew-Logo.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/CESTATNew-Logo.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/CESTATNew-Logo.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/CESTATNew-Logo.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/CESTATNew-Logo.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":270071,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/07\/14\/whether-ocean-freight-charges-can-be-collected-subject-to-levy-of-service-tax-cestat-answers\/","url_meta":{"origin":236319,"position":3},"title":"Whether ocean freight charges can be collected, subject to levy of Service Tax? CESTAT answers","author":"Editor","date":"July 14, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): The Division Coram of Sulekha Beevi C.S. (Judicial Member) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) allowed two appeals (with same issue involved) which were filed aggrieved by the order of original authority. The Tribunal answered that ocean freight charges are not subject\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/CESTATNew-Logo.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/CESTATNew-Logo.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/CESTATNew-Logo.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/CESTATNew-Logo.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/CESTATNew-Logo.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":363302,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/10\/transferring-tenancy-rights-not-liable-to-service-tax-cestat\/","url_meta":{"origin":236319,"position":4},"title":"Transferring tenancy and occupancy rights in immovable property not service under S. 65-B(44) of Finance Act; not liable to service tax: CESTAT","author":"Bharti","date":"October 10, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"\"Consideration out of surrender of tenancy right on account of immovable property cannot be considered as service as per definition under Section 65-B(44) of the Finance Act, 1994 and no service tax is payable.\"","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"transferring tenancy rights not liable to service tax","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/transferring-tenancy-rights-not-liable-to-service-tax.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/transferring-tenancy-rights-not-liable-to-service-tax.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/transferring-tenancy-rights-not-liable-to-service-tax.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/transferring-tenancy-rights-not-liable-to-service-tax.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":374207,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/30\/service-tax-not-leviable-on-data-hosting-services-cestat\/","url_meta":{"origin":236319,"position":5},"title":"Service Tax not leviable on data hosting services; Amazon Internet Services Pvt. Ltd. not an ‘intermediary’: CESTAT","author":"Bharti","date":"January 30, 2026","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThe place of supply of service being the location of the service recipient, which is outside India, no service tax is leviable\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Service Tax not leviable on data hosting services","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Service-Tax-not-leviable-on-data-hosting-services.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Service-Tax-not-leviable-on-data-hosting-services.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Service-Tax-not-leviable-on-data-hosting-services.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Service-Tax-not-leviable-on-data-hosting-services.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/236319","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=236319"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/236319\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/201689"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=236319"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=236319"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=236319"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}