<?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 (7) TMI 8 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794122</link>
    <description>Service tax under reverse charge could not be levied on corporate guarantees issued by an overseas parent company where no consideration was paid. CESTAT held that a service rendered without consideration does not amount to a taxable service, and the record did not establish any payment by the assessee for the guarantees. In the absence of consideration, the Revenue had no basis to sustain the demand. The tax demand was therefore unsustainable, and the connected penalty and interest consequences also did not survive.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 25 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Jul 2026 08:47:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=909406" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (7) TMI 8 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794122</link>
      <description>Service tax under reverse charge could not be levied on corporate guarantees issued by an overseas parent company where no consideration was paid. CESTAT held that a service rendered without consideration does not amount to a taxable service, and the record did not establish any payment by the assessee for the guarantees. In the absence of consideration, the Revenue had no basis to sustain the demand. The tax demand was therefore unsustainable, and the connected penalty and interest consequences also did not survive.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794122</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>