https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762505 CESTAT Ahmedabad held that penalty charges recovered from contractors for delayed goods/services delivery do not constitute taxable service under Section 66E(e) of Finance Act. Following precedent in Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Limited case, the tribunal ruled that penalty amounts, forfeiture of earnest money, and liquidated damages cannot be considered consideration for "tolerating an act" subject to service tax. The impugned order was set aside and appeal allowed, establishing that such penalty recoveries fall outside service tax liability scope. en-us Mon, 02 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 02 Dec 2024 19:43:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762505 CESTAT Ahmedabad held that penalty charges recovered from contractors for delayed goods/services delivery do not constitute taxable service under Section 66E(e) of Finance Act. Following precedent in Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Limited case, the tribunal ruled that penalty amounts, forfeiture of earnest money, and liquidated damages cannot be considered consideration for "tolerating an act" subject to service tax. The impugned order was set aside and appeal allowed, establishing that such penalty recoveries fall outside service tax liability scope. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 02 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762505