<?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>2025 (7) TMI 2040 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469435</link>
    <description>Service tax on alleged differential leased area could not be sustained because the lease deeds covered the area in question and no extra consideration was proved; valuation under Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 must rest on consideration actually received, so the demand was set aside. Cenvat credit on bank loan processing charges was inadmissible because the charges had no demonstrated nexus with renting of immovable property service, so denial of credit was upheld. However, suppression was not established, as returns were filed and the department had knowledge of the availment, so the demand survived only for the normal period and the penalty was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 07 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Jun 2026 19:02:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=907489" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (7) TMI 2040 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469435</link>
      <description>Service tax on alleged differential leased area could not be sustained because the lease deeds covered the area in question and no extra consideration was proved; valuation under Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 must rest on consideration actually received, so the demand was set aside. Cenvat credit on bank loan processing charges was inadmissible because the charges had no demonstrated nexus with renting of immovable property service, so denial of credit was upheld. However, suppression was not established, as returns were filed and the department had knowledge of the availment, so the demand survived only for the normal period and the penalty was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 07 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469435</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>