https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211054 The Tribunal classified the services provided by the appellants as 'Cargo Handling Services', making them liable for service tax. The extended period of limitation for demand was deemed applicable due to suppression with intent to evade tax. Penalties under sections 75A and 77 were upheld, with an option to pay 25% of the tax amount as a penalty. However, a Judicial Member disagreed, suggesting a remand for fresh consideration, arguing that the services were not 'Cargo Handling Services' and that the demand was time-barred. The difference of opinion centered on whether to uphold the appeal, the extended limitation period, and the penalties imposed. en-us Thu, 15 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 31 May 2012 14:16:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211054 The Tribunal classified the services provided by the appellants as 'Cargo Handling Services', making them liable for service tax. The extended period of limitation for demand was deemed applicable due to suppression with intent to evade tax. Penalties under sections 75A and 77 were upheld, with an option to pay 25% of the tax amount as a penalty. However, a Judicial Member disagreed, suggesting a remand for fresh consideration, arguing that the services were not 'Cargo Handling Services' and that the demand was time-barred. The difference of opinion centered on whether to uphold the appeal, the extended limitation period, and the penalties imposed. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 15 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211054