https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217432 The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed service tax within the limitation period for the appellants, imposing penalties. The appellants, involved in manufacturing alcoholic beverages, had service tax confirmed under 'Management Consultancy Services.' Despite the Show Cause Notice proposing franchisee services, tax was confirmed under IPR services. The Tribunal granted unconditional stay, citing inconsistency in categorization between the proposal and confirmation. This decision aligned with previous tribunal rulings, allowing the appellants to avoid pre-deposit of duty and penalty due to the categorization discrepancy. en-us Wed, 16 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 Jan 2013 17:12:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217432 The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed service tax within the limitation period for the appellants, imposing penalties. The appellants, involved in manufacturing alcoholic beverages, had service tax confirmed under 'Management Consultancy Services.' Despite the Show Cause Notice proposing franchisee services, tax was confirmed under IPR services. The Tribunal granted unconditional stay, citing inconsistency in categorization between the proposal and confirmation. This decision aligned with previous tribunal rulings, allowing the appellants to avoid pre-deposit of duty and penalty due to the categorization discrepancy. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 16 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217432