<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Service tax demand on mining struck down; invalid Cenvat credit rejected; penalty under Section 78 set aside</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=91372</link>
    <description>The CESTAT allowed the appeal, setting aside the demand for service tax of Rs.4.67 crores on mining activities, holding such activities fall under the negative list and are not liable to service tax. The Tribunal also rejected the demand for recovery of irregularly availed Cenvat credit of over Rs.10.20 crores, noting that the invoices relied upon were invalid documents under the CCR, 2004, and that the appellant&#039;s director admitted non-payment of service tax by the sub-contractor. However, the extended period of limitation for credit denial was held unjustified, as no fraud or willful suppression was established, and the department relied solely on appellant-produced documents without independent investigation. Consequently, the penalty under section 78 was also set aside. The entire demand, both on merit and limitation grounds, was quashed, resulting in the appeal&#039;s allowance.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Aug 2025 05:52:49 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Aug 2025 05:52:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=841824" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Service tax demand on mining struck down; invalid Cenvat credit rejected; penalty under Section 78 set aside</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=91372</link>
      <description>The CESTAT allowed the appeal, setting aside the demand for service tax of Rs.4.67 crores on mining activities, holding such activities fall under the negative list and are not liable to service tax. The Tribunal also rejected the demand for recovery of irregularly availed Cenvat credit of over Rs.10.20 crores, noting that the invoices relied upon were invalid documents under the CCR, 2004, and that the appellant&#039;s director admitted non-payment of service tax by the sub-contractor. However, the extended period of limitation for credit denial was held unjustified, as no fraud or willful suppression was established, and the department relied solely on appellant-produced documents without independent investigation. Consequently, the penalty under section 78 was also set aside. The entire demand, both on merit and limitation grounds, was quashed, resulting in the appeal&#039;s allowance.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Aug 2025 05:52:49 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=91372</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>