https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93464 CESTAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the departmental demand for service tax, finding that the facilities were developed for commercial use and therefore not eligible for the exemption relied upon. The Tribunal held the appellant and the contracting authority acted as intermediaries for a government-funded project to be owned and operated by a project society, with revenue-generating leases to an operator; accordingly the exemption was inapplicable. CESTAT sustained invocation of the extended limitation period under the proviso to section 73, held suppression with intent to evade tax proved, and affirmed imposition of penalty under section 78 and interest under section 75 of the Finance Act. All reliefs claimed by the appellant were rejected. en-us Sat, 18 Oct 2025 09:08:20 +0530 Sat, 18 Oct 2025 09:08:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93464 CESTAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the departmental demand for service tax, finding that the facilities were developed for commercial use and therefore not eligible for the exemption relied upon. The Tribunal held the appellant and the contracting authority acted as intermediaries for a government-funded project to be owned and operated by a project society, with revenue-generating leases to an operator; accordingly the exemption was inapplicable. CESTAT sustained invocation of the extended limitation period under the proviso to section 73, held suppression with intent to evade tax proved, and affirmed imposition of penalty under section 78 and interest under section 75 of the Finance Act. All reliefs claimed by the appellant were rejected. Highlights Service Tax Sat, 18 Oct 2025 09:08:20 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93464