https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=97233 Dispute concerns proper interest computation on delayed service tax where the question was which entry in Notification No.13/2016 applies; tribunal held that, because the appellant used cum-tax pricing and did not segregate tax from gross receipts, the liability is a plain short-payment covered by serial no.2 of the Notification rather than serial no.1, and the interest must be calculated accordingly. The demand was not framed under the special provision for reassessment and was issued under the general interest provision. Having paid tax, most interest and a reduced penalty within 30 days, the appellant qualified for the mitigation under the penalty provision and the impugned demand was set aside and appeal allowed. en-us Fri, 27 Feb 2026 12:29:52 +0530 Fri, 27 Feb 2026 12:29:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=97233 Dispute concerns proper interest computation on delayed service tax where the question was which entry in Notification No.13/2016 applies; tribunal held that, because the appellant used cum-tax pricing and did not segregate tax from gross receipts, the liability is a plain short-payment covered by serial no.2 of the Notification rather than serial no.1, and the interest must be calculated accordingly. The demand was not framed under the special provision for reassessment and was issued under the general interest provision. Having paid tax, most interest and a reduced penalty within 30 days, the appellant qualified for the mitigation under the penalty provision and the impugned demand was set aside and appeal allowed. Highlights Service Tax Fri, 27 Feb 2026 12:29:52 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=97233