<?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>Appeal allowed; service tax, interest and penalty demands overturned; Section 65(19) unspecified; training and OIDAR non-taxable</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94216</link>
    <description>CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned demands for service tax, interest and penalty. The Tribunal held that training provided to government employees pursuant to State mandate did not constitute taxable commercial training; vocational courses for disadvantaged/unemployed persons leading to DOEACC &quot;A&quot;/&quot;O&quot; levels were not taxable as commercial coaching; OIDAR demands were unsustainable because the appellant did not supply or own online data or provide data access/retrieval for consideration; and business auxiliary service demands failed for want of specification of the applicable sub-clause of Section 65(19). No wilful suppression was established. Consequently, the confirmed demands in respect of these three heads were held without merit and discharged.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Nov 2025 08:36:48 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 17 Nov 2025 08:36:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=865040" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Appeal allowed; service tax, interest and penalty demands overturned; Section 65(19) unspecified; training and OIDAR non-taxable</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94216</link>
      <description>CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned demands for service tax, interest and penalty. The Tribunal held that training provided to government employees pursuant to State mandate did not constitute taxable commercial training; vocational courses for disadvantaged/unemployed persons leading to DOEACC &quot;A&quot;/&quot;O&quot; levels were not taxable as commercial coaching; OIDAR demands were unsustainable because the appellant did not supply or own online data or provide data access/retrieval for consideration; and business auxiliary service demands failed for want of specification of the applicable sub-clause of Section 65(19). No wilful suppression was established. Consequently, the confirmed demands in respect of these three heads were held without merit and discharged.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Nov 2025 08:36:48 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94216</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>