<?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>2024 (3) TMI 130 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450349</link>
    <description>The CESTAT Allahabad allowed the appeal challenging service tax demand on Interest Free Maintenance Security, Lease Rent and Capital Replacement Fund. The tribunal held that the show cause notice issued solely based on audit objection without investigation was procedurally flawed, as revenue failed to verify figures or examine source documents. On merits, IFMS deposits for maintenance services were held non-taxable per established precedent. Lease rent amounts were merely transfers to NOIDA authority without service provision. The lower authorities failed to properly classify capital replacement fund services, while appellant had already paid tax under Construction of Residential Complex Service category with valid abatement. The demand was also time-barred as the show cause notice was issued beyond normal limitation period without justification for extended period invocation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 03 Mar 2024 17:35:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=745586" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (3) TMI 130 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450349</link>
      <description>The CESTAT Allahabad allowed the appeal challenging service tax demand on Interest Free Maintenance Security, Lease Rent and Capital Replacement Fund. The tribunal held that the show cause notice issued solely based on audit objection without investigation was procedurally flawed, as revenue failed to verify figures or examine source documents. On merits, IFMS deposits for maintenance services were held non-taxable per established precedent. Lease rent amounts were merely transfers to NOIDA authority without service provision. The lower authorities failed to properly classify capital replacement fund services, while appellant had already paid tax under Construction of Residential Complex Service category with valid abatement. The demand was also time-barred as the show cause notice was issued beyond normal limitation period without justification for extended period invocation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450349</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>