<?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; service-tax demand and penalty cancelled where foreign antivirus supplies lacked right-to-use and EULA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92513</link>
    <description>CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned service-tax demand and penalty. The Tribunal found the adjudicating authority failed to furnish reasoned findings that the appellant&#039;s receipts of anti-virus software from foreign suppliers constituted taxable ITSS services or involved transfer of a right to use; the contractual matrix showed no EULA between the appellant and foreign vendors and the right to use was conferred to end-users. Precedents relied upon by revenue were distinguished on the facts. Given admitted over-payment resulting in revenue neutrality and absence of deliberate suppression or mala fides, the extended limitation period and imposition of penalty were held inapplicable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 15 Sep 2025 08:26:13 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Sep 2025 08:26:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=850487" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Appeal allowed; service-tax demand and penalty cancelled where foreign antivirus supplies lacked right-to-use and EULA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92513</link>
      <description>CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned service-tax demand and penalty. The Tribunal found the adjudicating authority failed to furnish reasoned findings that the appellant&#039;s receipts of anti-virus software from foreign suppliers constituted taxable ITSS services or involved transfer of a right to use; the contractual matrix showed no EULA between the appellant and foreign vendors and the right to use was conferred to end-users. Precedents relied upon by revenue were distinguished on the facts. Given admitted over-payment resulting in revenue neutrality and absence of deliberate suppression or mala fides, the extended limitation period and imposition of penalty were held inapplicable.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Sep 2025 08:26:13 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92513</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>