https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446626 CESTAT New Delhi-AT allowed the appeal, holding that the appellant was not liable for service tax under declared service provisions of section 66E(e) of Finance Act, 1994. The tribunal found that the appellant had not agreed to tolerate any act or situation but merely committed to performance standards for supplied machines. The tolerance, if any, was on the part of machine receivers, not the appellant. Consequently, no service tax liability existed, making penalty imposition unjustified and unsustainable. en-us Wed, 06 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 Dec 2023 08:55:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446626 CESTAT New Delhi-AT allowed the appeal, holding that the appellant was not liable for service tax under declared service provisions of section 66E(e) of Finance Act, 1994. The tribunal found that the appellant had not agreed to tolerate any act or situation but merely committed to performance standards for supplied machines. The tolerance, if any, was on the part of machine receivers, not the appellant. Consequently, no service tax liability existed, making penalty imposition unjustified and unsustainable. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 06 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446626