https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236346 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that the project office in India should not be treated as a separate entity liable to pay service tax. The Tribunal found that the project office was not a permanent establishment and was set up solely for project implementation, thus the provisions of Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994 were not applicable. The Tribunal waived the requirement of pre-deposit for the service tax demand, interest, and penalty, and stayed the recovery of these amounts pending the appeal's disposal. en-us Mon, 04 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 Jan 2014 10:33:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236346 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that the project office in India should not be treated as a separate entity liable to pay service tax. The Tribunal found that the project office was not a permanent establishment and was set up solely for project implementation, thus the provisions of Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994 were not applicable. The Tribunal waived the requirement of pre-deposit for the service tax demand, interest, and penalty, and stayed the recovery of these amounts pending the appeal's disposal. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 04 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236346