https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115337 The Tribunal found that the demand of service tax against the service receiver, a ceramic tiles manufacturer, for technical assistance/erection/commissioning services was unsustainable as the services were not covered under "Consulting Engineering Services" for the relevant period. Penalties under Sections 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 were also set aside based on the same reasoning. The Tribunal noted that prior to 16-8-2000, a service receiver was not liable to pay service tax, making the imposition of penalties and demand of service tax unacceptable. The appeal of the service receiver was allowed, rejecting the Revenue's appeal for penalty enhancement. en-us Wed, 13 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 26 May 2012 12:15:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115337 The Tribunal found that the demand of service tax against the service receiver, a ceramic tiles manufacturer, for technical assistance/erection/commissioning services was unsustainable as the services were not covered under "Consulting Engineering Services" for the relevant period. Penalties under Sections 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 were also set aside based on the same reasoning. The Tribunal noted that prior to 16-8-2000, a service receiver was not liable to pay service tax, making the imposition of penalties and demand of service tax unacceptable. The appeal of the service receiver was allowed, rejecting the Revenue's appeal for penalty enhancement. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 13 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115337