<?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 (5) TMI 302 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=437495</link>
    <description>Foreclosure charges levied on premature loan termination were held not taxable under BOFS in s.65(12) of the Finance Act, 1994, following the Tribunal&#039;s larger bench view that such charges are not consideration for a taxable banking service; the demand on foreclosure charges was set aside. Penal charges recovered for payment defaults or cheque dishonour were treated as penal in nature arising from an independent cause of action and not as consideration for any service; the demand on penal charges was set aside. Insurance administration fees could not be classified under BAS because the service must be auxiliary to the recipient&#039;s business and the borrowers were individuals taking personal loans; the BAS demand was set aside. Consequently, interest and penalties were held unsustainable and the appeal was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 12 Jan 2026 14:47:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=712944" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (5) TMI 302 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=437495</link>
      <description>Foreclosure charges levied on premature loan termination were held not taxable under BOFS in s.65(12) of the Finance Act, 1994, following the Tribunal&#039;s larger bench view that such charges are not consideration for a taxable banking service; the demand on foreclosure charges was set aside. Penal charges recovered for payment defaults or cheque dishonour were treated as penal in nature arising from an independent cause of action and not as consideration for any service; the demand on penal charges was set aside. Insurance administration fees could not be classified under BAS because the service must be auxiliary to the recipient&#039;s business and the borrowers were individuals taking personal loans; the BAS demand was set aside. Consequently, interest and penalties were held unsustainable and the appeal was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=437495</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>