https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252852 The Tribunal classified the appellant's activities under 'Information Technology Software Service' (ITSS) instead of Business Auxiliary Service (BAS) as they were found to distribute the right to use software, not sell the software itself. The extended period for demand was applicable despite arguments for a revenue-neutral situation. The demand related to the right to use software supplied electronically was not sustained due to lack of evidence. The appellant's availed CENVAT credit for services to SEZ units was upheld following a retrospective amendment. The matter was remanded for further examination, with the appellant directed to deposit a specified amount for compliance. en-us Fri, 30 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 05 Nov 2014 11:47:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252852 The Tribunal classified the appellant's activities under 'Information Technology Software Service' (ITSS) instead of Business Auxiliary Service (BAS) as they were found to distribute the right to use software, not sell the software itself. The extended period for demand was applicable despite arguments for a revenue-neutral situation. The demand related to the right to use software supplied electronically was not sustained due to lack of evidence. The appellant's availed CENVAT credit for services to SEZ units was upheld following a retrospective amendment. The matter was remanded for further examination, with the appellant directed to deposit a specified amount for compliance. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 30 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252852