https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782828 CESTAT allowed the appeal, setting aside the residual service tax demand and penalty. The Dept had raised demand solely on the basis of third-party data in Form 26AS, treating gross receipts as taxable value. The Adjudicating Authority had already dropped most of the demand, accepting that receipts were for exempt job work of textile/fabric printing under Sr. No. 30(ii)(a) of N/N. 25/2012-ST, but confirmed tax on receipts from one client due to absence of a certificate. CESTAT held that, once the activity is accepted as exempt job work, no differential treatment is permissible, and penalty under s.78 also cannot survive. en-us Mon, 01 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 05 Dec 2025 08:12:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782828 CESTAT allowed the appeal, setting aside the residual service tax demand and penalty. The Dept had raised demand solely on the basis of third-party data in Form 26AS, treating gross receipts as taxable value. The Adjudicating Authority had already dropped most of the demand, accepting that receipts were for exempt job work of textile/fabric printing under Sr. No. 30(ii)(a) of N/N. 25/2012-ST, but confirmed tax on receipts from one client due to absence of a certificate. CESTAT held that, once the activity is accepted as exempt job work, no differential treatment is permissible, and penalty under s.78 also cannot survive. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 01 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782828