<?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>Reverse charge recipient ineligible for Notification No.14/2004-ST exemption; exemption limited to 1% FOB, time-barred demand set aside</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=91831</link>
    <description>CESTAT held that the appellant, as service recipient under the reverse charge mechanism, was not eligible for the exemption available to a non-taxable territory service provider under Notification No. 14/2004-ST; further, the exemption was conditional and limited to 1% of FOB, which the appellant exceeded and failed to substantiate through required EXP-4 filings. However, the Tribunal found no evidence of deliberate suppression with intent to evade duty and held the department&#039;s invocation of the extended period of limitation unjustified. Consequently the show cause notice was time-barred, the demand set aside, the impugned order quashed, and the appeal allowed in favour of the appellant.</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=845408" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Reverse charge recipient ineligible for Notification No.14/2004-ST exemption; exemption limited to 1% FOB, time-barred demand set aside</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=91831</link>
      <description>CESTAT held that the appellant, as service recipient under the reverse charge mechanism, was not eligible for the exemption available to a non-taxable territory service provider under Notification No. 14/2004-ST; further, the exemption was conditional and limited to 1% of FOB, which the appellant exceeded and failed to substantiate through required EXP-4 filings. However, the Tribunal found no evidence of deliberate suppression with intent to evade duty and held the department&#039;s invocation of the extended period of limitation unjustified. Consequently the show cause notice was time-barred, the demand set aside, the impugned order quashed, and the appeal allowed in favour of the appellant.</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=91831</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>