https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=90655 The CESTAT held that amounts collected as fines, penalties, liquidated damages, or forfeiture of deposits from contractors for failure to meet contractual obligations do not constitute consideration for taxable services under Section 65B(44) of the Finance Act, 1994. Such amounts are penal in nature, intended to compensate for losses or deter breaches, and lack nexus with any service rendered. Consequently, these amounts cannot be classified as "Declared Services" under Section 66E(e) without an independent agreement to tolerate or refrain from an act. The tribunal affirmed that no service was performed corresponding to these charges, and thus no service tax demand under Section 66E(e) is maintainable. The impugned order demanding service tax on such amounts was quashed, and the appeal was allowed. en-us Sat, 19 Jul 2025 13:45:03 +0530 Sat, 19 Jul 2025 13:45:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=90655 The CESTAT held that amounts collected as fines, penalties, liquidated damages, or forfeiture of deposits from contractors for failure to meet contractual obligations do not constitute consideration for taxable services under Section 65B(44) of the Finance Act, 1994. Such amounts are penal in nature, intended to compensate for losses or deter breaches, and lack nexus with any service rendered. Consequently, these amounts cannot be classified as "Declared Services" under Section 66E(e) without an independent agreement to tolerate or refrain from an act. The tribunal affirmed that no service was performed corresponding to these charges, and thus no service tax demand under Section 66E(e) is maintainable. The impugned order demanding service tax on such amounts was quashed, and the appeal was allowed. Highlights Service Tax Sat, 19 Jul 2025 13:45:03 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=90655