<?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>2026 (3) TMI 104 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787349</link>
    <description>Facility-management, server, WAN/LAN, help desk and network administration services were held to be essentially information technology operation and management services and therefore fall within the Business Auxiliary Service exclusion for IT services rather than Management, Maintenance or Repair; the Tribunal applied the classification priority rule and the essential character test for composite services and rejected the departmental classification. The Tribunal also found the department failed to establish willful suppression to invoke the extended limitation proviso, holding the service tax demand time barred. The impugned demand was set aside and the appeal allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Mar 2026 08:42:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=888810" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (3) TMI 104 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787349</link>
      <description>Facility-management, server, WAN/LAN, help desk and network administration services were held to be essentially information technology operation and management services and therefore fall within the Business Auxiliary Service exclusion for IT services rather than Management, Maintenance or Repair; the Tribunal applied the classification priority rule and the essential character test for composite services and rejected the departmental classification. The Tribunal also found the department failed to establish willful suppression to invoke the extended limitation proviso, holding the service tax demand time barred. The impugned demand was set aside and the appeal allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787349</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>