https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771260 CESTAT Allahabad allowed the appeal and set aside the demand. The appellant, a sub-contractor providing temporary earth retaining structure services, was exempt from Service Tax under Notification No.25/2012-ST as the main contractor was also exempt. The tribunal found no short payment of Service Tax during 2015-16 and 2016-17, as the appellant had deposited sufficient amounts. Cenvat credit rejection was improper since credit is based on maintaining records, not filing ST-3 returns. No penalty under Section 78 was imposable as there was no short payment. The services were incorrectly classified as taxable under wrong provisions. en-us Wed, 21 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 23 May 2025 08:46:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771260 CESTAT Allahabad allowed the appeal and set aside the demand. The appellant, a sub-contractor providing temporary earth retaining structure services, was exempt from Service Tax under Notification No.25/2012-ST as the main contractor was also exempt. The tribunal found no short payment of Service Tax during 2015-16 and 2016-17, as the appellant had deposited sufficient amounts. Cenvat credit rejection was improper since credit is based on maintaining records, not filing ST-3 returns. No penalty under Section 78 was imposable as there was no short payment. The services were incorrectly classified as taxable under wrong provisions. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 21 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771260