https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75906 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Department, upholding the appellant's liability to pay service tax for the period in question. It rejected the appellant's argument that the service provided did not constitute manpower recruitment or supply service, determining that the contract terms indicated a supply of manpower service based on the number of laborers supplied. The show-cause notice was deemed not time-barred, and the appellant was held liable for the service tax. Penalties under sections 76 and 78 were set aside due to ambiguity in the contract terms, with leniency applied under section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. en-us Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 30 Jul 2010 16:57:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75906 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Department, upholding the appellant's liability to pay service tax for the period in question. It rejected the appellant's argument that the service provided did not constitute manpower recruitment or supply service, determining that the contract terms indicated a supply of manpower service based on the number of laborers supplied. The show-cause notice was deemed not time-barred, and the appellant was held liable for the service tax. Penalties under sections 76 and 78 were set aside due to ambiguity in the contract terms, with leniency applied under section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75906