{"id":361246,"date":"2025-09-23T09:30:22","date_gmt":"2025-09-23T04:00:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=361246"},"modified":"2025-10-03T09:31:17","modified_gmt":"2025-10-03T04:01:17","slug":"damages-for-dispute-settlement-not-declared-service-cestat","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/23\/damages-for-dispute-settlement-not-declared-service-cestat\/","title":{"rendered":"Damages received for dispute settlement of agreement to sell, not taxable as \u2018declared service\u2019 under S. 66-E(e) of Finance Act, 1994: CESTAT"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi:<\/span> In appeals filed against the orders passed by Commissioner (Appeals), CGST, the two-member Bench of Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member)<\/span> allowed the appeals and held that damages received for settlement of dispute of an agreement to sell, did not amount to a ‘Declared Service’ under Section 66-E(e)<\/a> of the Finance Act, 1994<\/a> (‘Finance Act’).<\/p>\n

Background:<\/h3>\n

The appellants were registered with service tax department for providing services of renting immovable property service and have been paying service tax on the rental income. On 17-7-1987, landowners signed agreements with the appellants to sell land. The appellants also paid earnest money to the sellers. Thereafter, landowners sold land to other people. The appellants filed suit and later settled the matter with the landowners and were paid settlement amount of Rs. 4.5 crores each.<\/p>\n

The Revenue-respondent submitted that the amount received by the appellants was liable to service tax under Section 66-E(e)<\/a> of the Finance Act<\/a>. Thereafter, Show Cause Notices were issued to the appellants demanding service tax. The Proposal in the Show Cause Notices were confirmed by the Joint Commissioner in his Orders in Original which decisions were upheld in the orders, challenged in these three appeals.<\/p>\n

Analysis, Law and Decision:<\/h3>\n

The Tribunal stated that as per Section 66<\/a> of the Finance Act<\/a>, service tax was payable on taxable services rendered, which were listed in various clauses of Section 65(105)<\/a> of the Finance Act<\/a>. Thereafter, significant changes were made to the Finance Act in 2012 and all services except those in the negative list and especially those which were ‘Declared Services’ became exigible to service tax. Service tax had to be certainly paid on the ‘Declared Services’ under Section 66-E<\/a> of the Finance Act<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The definition of ‘Service’ in accordance with Section 65-B(44)<\/a> of the Finance Act<\/a> had three parts, the main part, an inclusion part and an exclusion part. The main part of the definition says service meant any activity carried out by a person for another for consideration. This definition was enlarged by the inclusion part of the definition ‘and includes declared services’. Therefore, if something was a Declared Service, even if it did not fall within the scope of the main part of the definition, it would still be ‘service’. The exclusion part of the definition then narrowed the scope of the term by excluding certain services.<\/p>\n

The Tribunal while looking at the scope of ‘Declared Services’ under Section 66-E<\/a> of the Finance Act<\/a>, noted that Clause (e) read as ‘agreeing to the obligation to refrain from an act, or to tolerate an act or a situation, or to do an act.’ The Tribunal noted that memorandum of settlement was signed by the appellants with the landowners and they received an amount for settlement. The Tribunal held that the settlement was not an agreement by itself but was only settlement of the dispute which had arisen out of an earlier agreement. The amount received by the appellants was only damages for reneging on the agreement to sell and clearly not an agreement to tolerate any act or situation. The Tribunal further held that it was beyond the scope of Section 66-E(e)<\/a> of the Finance Act<\/a> and was not a Declared Service and the demand of service tax on appellants could not be sustained. The appeals were allowed and the impugned orders were set aside.<\/p>\n

[Ajay Kumar Sood v. Commr. (CGST), 2025 SCC OnLine CESTAT 2965<\/a>, decided on: 1-9-2025<\/span>]<\/p>\n\n

Advocates who appeared in this case:<\/p>\n

For Appellant (s):<\/span> A.K. Batra and Sakshi Khanna, Chartered Accountants<\/p>\n

For Respondent(s):<\/span> Rajeev Kapoor and Suresh Nandanwar, Authorised Representative<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A settlement of dispute is clearly not an agreement to tolerate any act or situation. It is beyond the scope of Section 66-E(e) of the Finance Act, 1994 and thus not a ‘declared service’.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67528,"featured_media":361254,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,11],"tags":[33522,89641,89643,6651,2728,89644,89642,34483,86802],"class_list":["post-361246","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-tribunals_commissions_regulatorybodies","tag-agreement-to-sell","tag-binu-tamta-member-judicial-and-p-v-subba-rao-member-technical","tag-breach-of-agreement","tag-cestat","tag-compensation","tag-damages-for-dispute-settlement-not-declared-service","tag-declared-service","tag-finance-act-1994","tag-service-tax-demand"],"yoast_head":"\nDamages for dispute settlement not 'declared service': CESTAT|SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"CESTAT held that damages for dispute not 'Declared Service' and thus not taxable under Section 66-E(e) of the Finance Act, 1994.\" \/>\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\/2025\/09\/23\/damages-for-dispute-settlement-not-declared-service-cestat\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Damages received for dispute settlement of agreement to sell, not taxable as \u2018declared service\u2019 under S. 66-E(e) of Finance Act, 1994: CESTAT\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"CESTAT held that damages for dispute not 'Declared Service' and thus not taxable under Section 66-E(e) of the Finance Act, 1994.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/23\/damages-for-dispute-settlement-not-declared-service-cestat\/\" \/>\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=\"2025-09-23T04:00:22+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-10-03T04:01:17+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/damages-for-dispute-settlement-not-declared-service.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Bharti\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Damages received for dispute settlement of agreement to sell, not taxable as \u2018declared service\u2019 under S. 66-E(e) of Finance Act, 1994: CESTAT\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Bharti\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"3 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\/2025\/09\/23\/damages-for-dispute-settlement-not-declared-service-cestat\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/23\/damages-for-dispute-settlement-not-declared-service-cestat\/\",\"name\":\"Damages for dispute settlement not 'declared service': CESTAT|SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/23\/damages-for-dispute-settlement-not-declared-service-cestat\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/23\/damages-for-dispute-settlement-not-declared-service-cestat\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/damages-for-dispute-settlement-not-declared-service.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-09-23T04:00:22+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-10-03T04:01:17+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/c6cc268a9b9ddd8dd8418036a2e8bf02\"},\"description\":\"CESTAT held that damages for dispute not 'Declared Service' and thus not taxable under Section 66-E(e) of the Finance Act, 1994.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/23\/damages-for-dispute-settlement-not-declared-service-cestat\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/23\/damages-for-dispute-settlement-not-declared-service-cestat\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/23\/damages-for-dispute-settlement-not-declared-service-cestat\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/damages-for-dispute-settlement-not-declared-service.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/damages-for-dispute-settlement-not-declared-service.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"damages for dispute settlement not declared service\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/23\/damages-for-dispute-settlement-not-declared-service-cestat\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Damages received for dispute settlement of agreement to sell, not taxable as \u2018declared service\u2019 under S. 66-E(e) of Finance Act, 1994: CESTAT\"}]},{\"@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\/c6cc268a9b9ddd8dd8418036a2e8bf02\",\"name\":\"Bharti\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/06a70501db2ab8ab6d5dfd29559c29382270917d7bb0c1a5153790c34d56cafb?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/06a70501db2ab8ab6d5dfd29559c29382270917d7bb0c1a5153790c34d56cafb?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Bharti\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/bharti\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Damages for dispute settlement not 'declared service': CESTAT|SCC Times","description":"CESTAT held that damages for dispute not 'Declared Service' and thus not taxable under Section 66-E(e) of the Finance Act, 1994.","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\/2025\/09\/23\/damages-for-dispute-settlement-not-declared-service-cestat\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Damages received for dispute settlement of agreement to sell, not taxable as \u2018declared service\u2019 under S. 66-E(e) of Finance Act, 1994: CESTAT","og_description":"CESTAT held that damages for dispute not 'Declared Service' and thus not taxable under Section 66-E(e) of the Finance Act, 1994.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/23\/damages-for-dispute-settlement-not-declared-service-cestat\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2025-09-23T04:00:22+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-10-03T04:01:17+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/damages-for-dispute-settlement-not-declared-service.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Bharti","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Damages received for dispute settlement of agreement to sell, not taxable as \u2018declared service\u2019 under S. 66-E(e) of Finance Act, 1994: CESTAT","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Bharti","Est. reading time":"3 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/23\/damages-for-dispute-settlement-not-declared-service-cestat\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/23\/damages-for-dispute-settlement-not-declared-service-cestat\/","name":"Damages for dispute settlement not 'declared service': CESTAT|SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/23\/damages-for-dispute-settlement-not-declared-service-cestat\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/23\/damages-for-dispute-settlement-not-declared-service-cestat\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/damages-for-dispute-settlement-not-declared-service.webp","datePublished":"2025-09-23T04:00:22+00:00","dateModified":"2025-10-03T04:01:17+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/c6cc268a9b9ddd8dd8418036a2e8bf02"},"description":"CESTAT held that damages for dispute not 'Declared Service' and thus not taxable under Section 66-E(e) of the Finance Act, 1994.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/23\/damages-for-dispute-settlement-not-declared-service-cestat\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/23\/damages-for-dispute-settlement-not-declared-service-cestat\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/23\/damages-for-dispute-settlement-not-declared-service-cestat\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/damages-for-dispute-settlement-not-declared-service.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/damages-for-dispute-settlement-not-declared-service.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"damages for dispute settlement not declared service"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/23\/damages-for-dispute-settlement-not-declared-service-cestat\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Damages received for dispute settlement of agreement to sell, not taxable as \u2018declared service\u2019 under S. 66-E(e) of Finance Act, 1994: CESTAT"}]},{"@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\/c6cc268a9b9ddd8dd8418036a2e8bf02","name":"Bharti","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/06a70501db2ab8ab6d5dfd29559c29382270917d7bb0c1a5153790c34d56cafb?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/06a70501db2ab8ab6d5dfd29559c29382270917d7bb0c1a5153790c34d56cafb?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Bharti"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/bharti\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/damages-for-dispute-settlement-not-declared-service.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":354006,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/21\/cestat-no-service-tax-on-upfront-fee-penalty-on-dmrc-set-aside\/","url_meta":{"origin":361246,"position":0},"title":"\u2018No service tax to be paid on upfront fee\/premium for agreement to lease\u2019; CESTAT sets aside penalty on DMRC","author":"Sanket","date":"July 21, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cAt the time of executing the Concession Agreements with developers, DMRC had collected \"upfront fee\" as a price for obtaining the respective Concession Agreements.\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 on upfront fee","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/service-tax-on-upfront-fee.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/service-tax-on-upfront-fee.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/service-tax-on-upfront-fee.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/service-tax-on-upfront-fee.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":362229,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/01\/tribunal-and-commissions-september-2025-roundup-hyd-airport-case-epfo-stakeholder-claim\/","url_meta":{"origin":361246,"position":1},"title":"Tribunals and Commissions September 2025| EPFO stakeholder claims; Food safety standards violation; Education Society\u2019s service tax exemption; & More","author":"Editor","date":"October 1, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"Explore the key legal developments of September 2025, featuring the CCI\u2019S abuse of dominance case against GMR Hyderabad Airport, CESTAT\u2019S exemption of service tax for Education Welfare Society, SEBI on liability in partnership, EPFO stakeholder claims.","rel":"","context":"In "Legal RoundUp"","block_context":{"text":"Legal RoundUp","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/columns-for-roundup\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Tribunals and Commissions September 2025","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Tribunals-and-Commissions-September-2025.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Tribunals-and-Commissions-September-2025.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Tribunals-and-Commissions-September-2025.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Tribunals-and-Commissions-September-2025.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":252157,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/08\/03\/service-tax\/","url_meta":{"origin":361246,"position":2},"title":"CESTAT | Whether service tax is payable on liquidated damages and penalties recovered under the contract? Tribunal answers","author":"Editor","date":"August 3, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): The Coram of Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) allowed the appeals which were related to demand of service tax on liquidated damages recovered by the appellant for acts of default, like delayed or deficient supplies by various suppliers.\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":279695,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/12\/15\/cestat-exempts-all-india-football-federation-from-paying-service-tax-in-accordance-with-the-tripartite-agreement-between-parties\/","url_meta":{"origin":361246,"position":3},"title":"CESTAT exempts All India Football Federation from paying service tax in accordance with the tripartite agreement between parties","author":"Editor","date":"December 15, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"AIFF did not render any service but concurred with the agreement whereby the rights were transferred from ZEEL to IMGR","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"CESTAT","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image99.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":241223,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/12\/25\/cestat-whether-reimbursement-of-salary-paid-to-secondee-to-parent-company-amounts-to-consideration-for-provision-of-manpower-recruitment-and-supply-agency-services-within-the-me\/","url_meta":{"origin":361246,"position":4},"title":"CESTAT | Whether reimbursement of salary paid to \u2018secondee\u2019, to parent company, amounts to consideration for provision of manpower recruitment & supply agency services, within the meaning of S. 65(68) of Finance Act; Tribunal explains","author":"Editor","date":"December 25, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): The Coram of P. Venkata Subba Rao (Technical Member) and P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) allowed an appeal filed against Order-in-Appeal passed by Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, (Appeals-II). The appellant was a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) and was\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":253972,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/09\/10\/cestat-discounts-offered-by-car-manufacturers-to-their-dealers-for-onward-transmission-to-corporate-customers-taxable-tribunal-explains\/","url_meta":{"origin":361246,"position":5},"title":"CESTAT | Discounts offered by car manufacturers to their dealers for onward transmission to corporate customers taxable? Tribunal explains","author":"Editor","date":"September 10, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): The Coram of CJ Mathew (Technical Member) and Ajay Sharma (Judicial Member), allowed an appeal which was filed against the impugned order of the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals -IV) wherein he had upheld demand of Rs 29,57,199\/-, for\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":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/361246","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\/67528"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=361246"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/361246\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/361254"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=361246"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=361246"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=361246"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}