https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774412 CESTAT Ahmedabad allowed the appeal regarding differential service tax demand by disallowing 70% abatement. The Gujarat HC in SAL Steel Ltd case struck down Notifications 15/2017-ST and 16/2017-ST, holding Rules 2(1)(d)(EEC) and 6(7CA) ultra vires Sections 64, 65B(44), 66B, 67, 68 and 94 of Finance Act, 1994. These provisions made importers liable for service tax on ocean freight services by foreign shipping lines under reverse charge mechanism. Since the levy of service tax on ocean freight was invalidated by the HC, the department's demand for differential service tax by denying abatement lacked merit. en-us Thu, 03 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 09 Jul 2025 08:50:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774412 CESTAT Ahmedabad allowed the appeal regarding differential service tax demand by disallowing 70% abatement. The Gujarat HC in SAL Steel Ltd case struck down Notifications 15/2017-ST and 16/2017-ST, holding Rules 2(1)(d)(EEC) and 6(7CA) ultra vires Sections 64, 65B(44), 66B, 67, 68 and 94 of Finance Act, 1994. These provisions made importers liable for service tax on ocean freight services by foreign shipping lines under reverse charge mechanism. Since the levy of service tax on ocean freight was invalidated by the HC, the department's demand for differential service tax by denying abatement lacked merit. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 03 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774412