https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775822 CESTAT Bangalore allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order. The tribunal held that input service credit for laying foundations supporting capital goods is disallowed unless linked to specified services like works contracts; since erection and commissioning fall under specified services, credit was justified. Service tax demand on lease rental income was set aside, following precedent that such rent-sharing among associated enterprises is not a taxable service. The demand for reversal of CENVAT credit under Rule 6(3) CCR was also rejected based on CBIC Circular No.213/3/2019-ST, which restricts reversal only when both inputs and input services are restricted. Regarding abatement on repair and maintenance under works contract, the appellant correctly discharged duty on 60% of the value per Valuation Rules, so the demand was unsustainable. en-us Wed, 30 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 01 Aug 2025 08:15:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775822 CESTAT Bangalore allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order. The tribunal held that input service credit for laying foundations supporting capital goods is disallowed unless linked to specified services like works contracts; since erection and commissioning fall under specified services, credit was justified. Service tax demand on lease rental income was set aside, following precedent that such rent-sharing among associated enterprises is not a taxable service. The demand for reversal of CENVAT credit under Rule 6(3) CCR was also rejected based on CBIC Circular No.213/3/2019-ST, which restricts reversal only when both inputs and input services are restricted. Regarding abatement on repair and maintenance under works contract, the appellant correctly discharged duty on 60% of the value per Valuation Rules, so the demand was unsustainable. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 30 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775822