<?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>Appeal allowed in part: 67% concessional exemption under N/N.18/2005-ST upheld; pure agent, refundable deposits not taxable; prior CENVAT recovery sustained</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=91829</link>
    <description>CESTAT allowed the appeal in part and disposed of it. The Tribunal held the appellant entitled to the 67% concessional exemption under N/N.18/2005-ST for services rendered prior to N/N.1/2006-ST; demands based on denial of that exemption were set aside. Service-tax demands premised on maintenance/repair charges were negated as the appellant acted as a pure agent; demands under &quot;club or association service&quot; and &quot;security agency service&quot; (guard charges) were also annulled as receipts were refundable deposits or penalties, not taxable consideration. Recovery of previously paid CENVAT-related tax, interest and 25% penalty was upheld and appropriated. Invoked extended limitation and all penalties were set aside for bona fide interpretation and absence of suppression.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 23 Aug 2025 08:31:25 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 23 Aug 2025 08:31:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=845406" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Appeal allowed in part: 67% concessional exemption under N/N.18/2005-ST upheld; pure agent, refundable deposits not taxable; prior CENVAT recovery sustained</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=91829</link>
      <description>CESTAT allowed the appeal in part and disposed of it. The Tribunal held the appellant entitled to the 67% concessional exemption under N/N.18/2005-ST for services rendered prior to N/N.1/2006-ST; demands based on denial of that exemption were set aside. Service-tax demands premised on maintenance/repair charges were negated as the appellant acted as a pure agent; demands under &quot;club or association service&quot; and &quot;security agency service&quot; (guard charges) were also annulled as receipts were refundable deposits or penalties, not taxable consideration. Recovery of previously paid CENVAT-related tax, interest and 25% penalty was upheld and appropriated. Invoked extended limitation and all penalties were set aside for bona fide interpretation and absence of suppression.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 23 Aug 2025 08:31:25 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=91829</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>