https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239226 The tribunal upheld the classification of services under "Commercial or Industrial Construction Service" and the demand for service tax along with interest. However, there was a difference of opinion regarding the invocation of the extended period of limitation and the imposition of penalties, which was referred to the President of CESTAT for resolution. Penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 were upheld, with a dissenting opinion on the aspect of limitation and penalties by the Judicial Member. en-us Tue, 20 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Oct 2014 14:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239226 The tribunal upheld the classification of services under "Commercial or Industrial Construction Service" and the demand for service tax along with interest. However, there was a difference of opinion regarding the invocation of the extended period of limitation and the imposition of penalties, which was referred to the President of CESTAT for resolution. Penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 were upheld, with a dissenting opinion on the aspect of limitation and penalties by the Judicial Member. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 20 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239226