https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779656 CESTAT AT set aside the service tax demand and allowed the appeal, holding that forfeited sums (earnest money, security deposits, fines, penalties) are penal in nature and lack nexus with any declared service under s.66E(e) of the Finance Act, 1994, so cannot constitute taxable consideration. The Tribunal found the adjudicating authorities ignored prior decisions and departmental clarification requiring a specific agreement and flow of consideration for s.66E(e) to apply, characterising that failure as judicial indiscipline and warning lower authorities to be cautious in future. en-us Tue, 30 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 10 Oct 2025 08:44:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779656 CESTAT AT set aside the service tax demand and allowed the appeal, holding that forfeited sums (earnest money, security deposits, fines, penalties) are penal in nature and lack nexus with any declared service under s.66E(e) of the Finance Act, 1994, so cannot constitute taxable consideration. The Tribunal found the adjudicating authorities ignored prior decisions and departmental clarification requiring a specific agreement and flow of consideration for s.66E(e) to apply, characterising that failure as judicial indiscipline and warning lower authorities to be cautious in future. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 30 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779656