<?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>Appellant held liable for service tax on site formation, excavation and demolition; extended period invoked; Section 78 penalty reduced</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=91741</link>
    <description>CESTAT upheld that the appellant is liable to service tax for site formation, clearance, excavation, earthmoving and demolition services for the period 2008-09 to 30.06.2012, rejecting its works-contract classification argument and denial of liability. The Tribunal affirmed denial of exemption under the relevant notification for lack of contractual evidence and sustained invocation of the extended period, finding wilful evasion and rejecting bona fide ignorance. CESTAT partially set aside penalties (reducing the penalty imposed under Section 78 to the limited extent specified) but did not disturb demands acknowledged by the appellant. The Tribunal remitted the balance of duty, interest and penalties to the adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication with limited legal observations; appeal allowed in part.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Aug 2025 08:35:53 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 21 Aug 2025 08:35:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=844835" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Appellant held liable for service tax on site formation, excavation and demolition; extended period invoked; Section 78 penalty reduced</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=91741</link>
      <description>CESTAT upheld that the appellant is liable to service tax for site formation, clearance, excavation, earthmoving and demolition services for the period 2008-09 to 30.06.2012, rejecting its works-contract classification argument and denial of liability. The Tribunal affirmed denial of exemption under the relevant notification for lack of contractual evidence and sustained invocation of the extended period, finding wilful evasion and rejecting bona fide ignorance. CESTAT partially set aside penalties (reducing the penalty imposed under Section 78 to the limited extent specified) but did not disturb demands acknowledged by the appellant. The Tribunal remitted the balance of duty, interest and penalties to the adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication with limited legal observations; appeal allowed in part.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Aug 2025 08:35:53 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=91741</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>