https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779927 CESTAT (Del.) - AT held that amounts collected as "lease money" were state-mandated receipts remitted to the Government and not consideration for renting immovable property, so no service tax liability arises. Payments to a person for performing tasks were wages, not manpower supply agency services. Invocation of the extended period for wrong CENVAT credit was unjustified where routine audit, not concealment, revealed the issue. Penalties under ss.77/78 (against Appellant 1) and s.78 (against Appellant 2) were set aside. Appeal allowed and demands/penalties annulled. en-us Wed, 17 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 15 Oct 2025 08:28:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779927 CESTAT (Del.) - AT held that amounts collected as "lease money" were state-mandated receipts remitted to the Government and not consideration for renting immovable property, so no service tax liability arises. Payments to a person for performing tasks were wages, not manpower supply agency services. Invocation of the extended period for wrong CENVAT credit was unjustified where routine audit, not concealment, revealed the issue. Penalties under ss.77/78 (against Appellant 1) and s.78 (against Appellant 2) were set aside. Appeal allowed and demands/penalties annulled. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 17 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779927