<?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 880 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780084</link>
    <description>CESTAT partly allowed the appeal: the levy issue on renting of immovable property for certain tenants is remanded to the original authority for reconsideration in light of the Supreme Court&#039;s decision in the Retailers Association matter. Demands relating to miscellaneous income were confirmed because the appellant failed to substantiate that receipts were non-taxable (e.g., scrap, interest); that portion is remitted for precise quantification. Demand based on discrepancy between the CENVAT credit register and ST-3 was upheld, including interest and penalties, since supporting tax-payment documents were not produced. Case returned to original authority for fresh computation and decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Oct 2025 11:47:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=859362" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (10) TMI 880 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780084</link>
      <description>CESTAT partly allowed the appeal: the levy issue on renting of immovable property for certain tenants is remanded to the original authority for reconsideration in light of the Supreme Court&#039;s decision in the Retailers Association matter. Demands relating to miscellaneous income were confirmed because the appellant failed to substantiate that receipts were non-taxable (e.g., scrap, interest); that portion is remitted for precise quantification. Demand based on discrepancy between the CENVAT credit register and ST-3 was upheld, including interest and penalties, since supporting tax-payment documents were not produced. Case returned to original authority for fresh computation and decision.</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=780084</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>