<?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 1205 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788450</link>
    <description>Port Service liability for stevedoring, cargo handling and allied work done in port premises before 08.05.2010 could not be fastened without statutory authorisation from the port authority, because the 2010 expansion of the definition was prospective and did not apply retrospectively. The service tax demand for that earlier period was therefore unsustainable. The Tribunal also found that the dispute reflected a bona fide interpretative disagreement on taxability, not suppression with intent to evade, so the extended period of limitation could not be invoked. As the demand failed on merits, the consequential interest and penalties also failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Mar 2026 08:49:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=892251" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (3) TMI 1205 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788450</link>
      <description>Port Service liability for stevedoring, cargo handling and allied work done in port premises before 08.05.2010 could not be fastened without statutory authorisation from the port authority, because the 2010 expansion of the definition was prospective and did not apply retrospectively. The service tax demand for that earlier period was therefore unsustainable. The Tribunal also found that the dispute reflected a bona fide interpretative disagreement on taxability, not suppression with intent to evade, so the extended period of limitation could not be invoked. As the demand failed on merits, the consequential interest and penalties also failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788450</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>