https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93365 CESTAT allowed the appeal: amounts collected as "lease money" were held not to be consideration for renting immovable property but merely mandated collections remitted to the State, therefore no service and no taxable consideration - demands on that count quashed; payments to an individual engaged by the appellant were characterised as salary/wages, not manpower supply agency services, so that demand was set aside; invocation of the extended period of limitation for irregular CENVAT credit was rejected because routine self-assessment and audit detection do not satisfy the statutory requisites for extension; consequential penalties under sections 77 and 78 (Appellant 1) and section 78 (Appellant 2) were set aside. Appeal disposed. en-us Wed, 15 Oct 2025 08:28:48 +0530 Wed, 15 Oct 2025 08:28:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93365 CESTAT allowed the appeal: amounts collected as "lease money" were held not to be consideration for renting immovable property but merely mandated collections remitted to the State, therefore no service and no taxable consideration - demands on that count quashed; payments to an individual engaged by the appellant were characterised as salary/wages, not manpower supply agency services, so that demand was set aside; invocation of the extended period of limitation for irregular CENVAT credit was rejected because routine self-assessment and audit detection do not satisfy the statutory requisites for extension; consequential penalties under sections 77 and 78 (Appellant 1) and section 78 (Appellant 2) were set aside. Appeal disposed. Highlights Service Tax Wed, 15 Oct 2025 08:28:48 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93365