<?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>2025 (10) TMI 884 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780088</link>
    <description>Service tax liability on receipts attributed to manpower supply, maintenance or repair, courier agency, security agency and cleaning services was reworked after joint verification on remand. The verification found that the assessee could not produce complete documentary linkage between receipts and the relevant award letters or bills, and the records did not permit exact segregation across the service categories. Even so, the verified material showed that the original quantification was excessive. The demand and the penalty under section 78 were therefore reduced to the reworked figure of Rs. 72,80,604, while the remaining parts of the order were upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 Oct 2025 09:08:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=859358" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (10) TMI 884 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780088</link>
      <description>Service tax liability on receipts attributed to manpower supply, maintenance or repair, courier agency, security agency and cleaning services was reworked after joint verification on remand. The verification found that the assessee could not produce complete documentary linkage between receipts and the relevant award letters or bills, and the records did not permit exact segregation across the service categories. Even so, the verified material showed that the original quantification was excessive. The demand and the penalty under section 78 were therefore reduced to the reworked figure of Rs. 72,80,604, while the remaining parts of the order were upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780088</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>