https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128960 For abatement under the service tax notification, the applicable notification was linked to the date of completion of service, not the date on which tax was deposited. The order records a prima facie view that services completed before 1-3-2006 remained covered by Notification No. 18/2005-S.T., and were not shifted to Notification No. 1/2006-S.T. merely because payment was made later. Since Rule 6(1) of the Service Tax Rules permits tax payment by the 5th of the succeeding month, the later deposit was treated as a deferment of payment. On that basis, pre-deposit of duty and penalty was waived pending disposal of the appeal. en-us Wed, 25 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 15 Apr 2013 16:28:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128960 For abatement under the service tax notification, the applicable notification was linked to the date of completion of service, not the date on which tax was deposited. The order records a prima facie view that services completed before 1-3-2006 remained covered by Notification No. 18/2005-S.T., and were not shifted to Notification No. 1/2006-S.T. merely because payment was made later. Since Rule 6(1) of the Service Tax Rules permits tax payment by the 5th of the succeeding month, the later deposit was treated as a deferment of payment. On that basis, pre-deposit of duty and penalty was waived pending disposal of the appeal. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 25 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128960