https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202893 The appellant successfully argued that conflicting decisions prior to the Larger Bench ruling supported their belief that consignment agents were not liable to pay service tax as Clearing and Forwarding Agents. The judge agreed that the appellant should not be faulted for acting on a bona fide belief in the absence of clarity in the law. As a result, the demand for duty beyond the limitation period was deemed unjustified. The impugned order was set aside, and the case was remanded for re-quantification of duty. The penalty under Section 78 was also revoked, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly. en-us Fri, 27 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 Apr 2011 17:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202893 The appellant successfully argued that conflicting decisions prior to the Larger Bench ruling supported their belief that consignment agents were not liable to pay service tax as Clearing and Forwarding Agents. The judge agreed that the appellant should not be faulted for acting on a bona fide belief in the absence of clarity in the law. As a result, the demand for duty beyond the limitation period was deemed unjustified. The impugned order was set aside, and the case was remanded for re-quantification of duty. The penalty under Section 78 was also revoked, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 27 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202893