https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769788 CESTAT NEW DELHI allowed the appeal, setting aside the Commissioner's order dated 30.09.2022. The Tribunal held that the appellant was entitled to CENVAT credit of service tax paid on GTA services for outward transportation of goods, as delivery was on FOR destination basis with freight charges included in the goods value. The Commissioner's finding that no evidence established FOR terms was erroneous. Additionally, following the precedent in South Eastern Coalfields, the Tribunal ruled that fines, penalties, retention money and liquidated damages could not be considered as "consideration" for "tolerating an act" under section 66E(e) of the Finance Act, making them not liable to service tax. en-us Wed, 30 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 02 May 2025 08:54:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769788 CESTAT NEW DELHI allowed the appeal, setting aside the Commissioner's order dated 30.09.2022. The Tribunal held that the appellant was entitled to CENVAT credit of service tax paid on GTA services for outward transportation of goods, as delivery was on FOR destination basis with freight charges included in the goods value. The Commissioner's finding that no evidence established FOR terms was erroneous. Additionally, following the precedent in South Eastern Coalfields, the Tribunal ruled that fines, penalties, retention money and liquidated damages could not be considered as "consideration" for "tolerating an act" under section 66E(e) of the Finance Act, making them not liable to service tax. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 30 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769788