https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221569 The Commissioner partially favored the appellant by restricting the demand period for Service tax, ruling in favor of the appellant regarding liability for Service tax on cleaning services provided to a non-commercial organization, and setting aside penalties under Section 78 while granting relief under Section 80 due to the absence of intent to evade taxes. However, the appellant was denied abatement for outdoor catering services, as they had availed Cenvat credit on common input services. The appeal was disposed of based on these determinations. en-us Wed, 29 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 18 Mar 2013 18:06:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221569 The Commissioner partially favored the appellant by restricting the demand period for Service tax, ruling in favor of the appellant regarding liability for Service tax on cleaning services provided to a non-commercial organization, and setting aside penalties under Section 78 while granting relief under Section 80 due to the absence of intent to evade taxes. However, the appellant was denied abatement for outdoor catering services, as they had availed Cenvat credit on common input services. The appeal was disposed of based on these determinations. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 29 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221569