https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761487 CESTAT Ahmedabad held that penalty recovered from contractors for delayed completion of work does not constitute a declared service under Section 66E(e) of Finance Act, 1994, as it is not consideration for any service rendered. Similarly, amounts recovered from employees for insufficient notice period before resignation do not attract service tax, as employers do not render taxable services by facilitating employee exit upon compensation. Following precedents from CESTAT New Delhi and Madras HC, the tribunal set aside service tax demands on both grounds, allowing the appeal and rejecting the revenue's plea regarding alternate remedy availability. en-us Wed, 06 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 Nov 2024 19:10:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761487 CESTAT Ahmedabad held that penalty recovered from contractors for delayed completion of work does not constitute a declared service under Section 66E(e) of Finance Act, 1994, as it is not consideration for any service rendered. Similarly, amounts recovered from employees for insufficient notice period before resignation do not attract service tax, as employers do not render taxable services by facilitating employee exit upon compensation. Following precedents from CESTAT New Delhi and Madras HC, the tribunal set aside service tax demands on both grounds, allowing the appeal and rejecting the revenue's plea regarding alternate remedy availability. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 06 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761487