<?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 (9) TMI 1669 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=799643</link>
    <description>Deliberate collection of service tax without remittance constitutes evasion and may support statutory penalties and the extended limitation period. Penalty for delayed payment is a civil consequence; separate proof of mens rea is unnecessary once the statutory default is established. Admissions made during a customs inquiry were treated as substantive evidence where no contemporaneous retraction displaced them. The original penalty determination remained operative. Although housekeeping services were taxable, their assessable value required fresh determination from underlying invoices because no material challenged the invoices or their declared values. Deliberate non-remittance, supported by investigative admissions, established wilful suppression with intent to evade tax and sustained extended-period recovery.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 Sep 2026 08:16:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=925863" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (9) TMI 1669 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=799643</link>
      <description>Deliberate collection of service tax without remittance constitutes evasion and may support statutory penalties and the extended limitation period. Penalty for delayed payment is a civil consequence; separate proof of mens rea is unnecessary once the statutory default is established. Admissions made during a customs inquiry were treated as substantive evidence where no contemporaneous retraction displaced them. The original penalty determination remained operative. Although housekeeping services were taxable, their assessable value required fresh determination from underlying invoices because no material challenged the invoices or their declared values. Deliberate non-remittance, supported by investigative admissions, established wilful suppression with intent to evade tax and sustained extended-period recovery.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=799643</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>