https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777912 CESTAT (AT) heard matter on merits despite nonappearance and held that abatement denial and differential service-tax demand could not stand. Applying SC precedent, contracts providing construction with material use were not liable to service tax under the construction-service heads before 1.6.2007, and after that date works contracts are taxable only under the specific "works contract" clause. Consequently the tribunal found no levy under the cited construction-service entries, set aside the demand for differential service tax, interest and penalty, and allowed the appeal, quashing the impugned order. en-us Mon, 01 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 08 Sep 2025 13:37:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777912 CESTAT (AT) heard matter on merits despite nonappearance and held that abatement denial and differential service-tax demand could not stand. Applying SC precedent, contracts providing construction with material use were not liable to service tax under the construction-service heads before 1.6.2007, and after that date works contracts are taxable only under the specific "works contract" clause. Consequently the tribunal found no levy under the cited construction-service entries, set aside the demand for differential service tax, interest and penalty, and allowed the appeal, quashing the impugned order. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 01 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777912