https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253392 The Tribunal found in favor of the Department regarding the demand under Franchise Service, directing the appellant to deposit 50% of the demand within the normal period. However, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant for the demands under Business Auxiliary Service, Management Consultancy Service, and Maintenance or Repair Service, stating that the appellant had made a prima facie case for waiver. Additionally, the Tribunal sided with the appellant on the denial of CENVAT credit on STPI invoices, finding that the appellant had a prima facie case for waiver in this regard as well. en-us Mon, 08 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 20 Jan 2015 10:48:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253392 The Tribunal found in favor of the Department regarding the demand under Franchise Service, directing the appellant to deposit 50% of the demand within the normal period. However, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant for the demands under Business Auxiliary Service, Management Consultancy Service, and Maintenance or Repair Service, stating that the appellant had made a prima facie case for waiver. Additionally, the Tribunal sided with the appellant on the denial of CENVAT credit on STPI invoices, finding that the appellant had a prima facie case for waiver in this regard as well. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 08 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253392