2024 (3) TMI 1176

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Appellant Shri M. Ambe, DC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER This appeal is filed against Order in Appeal No. 11/2022 (CTA-II) dated 28.2.2022 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals - II), Chennai and the only issue that arises for our consideration is "whether the Revenue authorities are justified in demanding service tax on the liquidated damages?" 2. Shri S. Muthuvenkataraman, learned Advocate a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rted in 2020 (12) TMI 912 - CESTAT, New Delhi and settled in favour of the taxpayer which has been followed in the following orders:- (i) Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner of Cus., C.Ex. & S.T. [2021 (53) G.S.T.L. 401 (Tri. - Chennai)] (ii) Steel Authority of India Ltd., Salem v. Commissioner [2021 (7) TMI 1092 - CESTAT, Chennai] (iii) South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Commissi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... /85628/2023 dated 26.04.2023 - Service Tax Appeal No. 85781 of 2019 - CESTAT, Mumbai) 6. Further, we find that vide Circular No. 214/1/2023-ST dated 28.2.2023, even the Board had accepted the view of the CESTAT and decided not to prefer appeals before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against CESTAT orders. 7. That being the situation, we are of the view that the service tax liability fastened on th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X