https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762431 CESTAT New Delhi ruled in favor of the assessee regarding service tax demand on amounts retained through forfeiture of earnest money/security deposits from contractors. The tribunal held that forfeited amounts do not constitute consideration for declared services under section 66E(e) of Finance Act, 1994. The decision was supported by SC precedent and departmental circular clarifying that contract cancellation itself is not a service. The tribunal found the retention amount was wrongly considered as consideration for declared services, set aside the challenged order, and allowed the appeal. en-us Mon, 04 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 01 Dec 2024 10:45:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762431 CESTAT New Delhi ruled in favor of the assessee regarding service tax demand on amounts retained through forfeiture of earnest money/security deposits from contractors. The tribunal held that forfeited amounts do not constitute consideration for declared services under section 66E(e) of Finance Act, 1994. The decision was supported by SC precedent and departmental circular clarifying that contract cancellation itself is not a service. The tribunal found the retention amount was wrongly considered as consideration for declared services, set aside the challenged order, and allowed the appeal. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 04 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762431