<?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 998 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=795112</link>
    <description>Extended limitation for service-tax recovery requires fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression, or contravention with intent to evade; uncertainty over the taxability of wheeling charges and cross-subsidy surcharges made the dispute interpretative and did not establish those prerequisites. Recovery beyond the normal limitation period was therefore unsustainable. Wheeling charges for use of a distribution network and cross-subsidy surcharges under the electricity-law framework were intrinsically connected with electricity transmission or distribution. As neither charge was consideration for agreeing to tolerate an act, neither constituted a declared service, and no service-tax liability arose.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2026 08:37:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=912177" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (7) TMI 998 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=795112</link>
      <description>Extended limitation for service-tax recovery requires fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression, or contravention with intent to evade; uncertainty over the taxability of wheeling charges and cross-subsidy surcharges made the dispute interpretative and did not establish those prerequisites. Recovery beyond the normal limitation period was therefore unsustainable. Wheeling charges for use of a distribution network and cross-subsidy surcharges under the electricity-law framework were intrinsically connected with electricity transmission or distribution. As neither charge was consideration for agreeing to tolerate an act, neither constituted a declared service, and no service-tax liability arose.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=795112</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>