https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258546 The tribunal denied the adjournment request due to counsel's absence, citing dilatory tactics by the appellant. A substantial service tax demand of Rs. 7.71 crores with penalty and interest was upheld. The judgment interpreted service tax liability for various services provided, applying the extended period of limitation. Interest demand under the Finance Act was sustained, and penalties were imposed. Lack of cooperation from the appellant led to an ex-parte order. The tribunal required a specified pre-deposit amount for interim relief, allowing a waiver for the balance demand during the appeal's pendency. en-us Wed, 31 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 12 Apr 2015 20:51:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258546 The tribunal denied the adjournment request due to counsel's absence, citing dilatory tactics by the appellant. A substantial service tax demand of Rs. 7.71 crores with penalty and interest was upheld. The judgment interpreted service tax liability for various services provided, applying the extended period of limitation. Interest demand under the Finance Act was sustained, and penalties were imposed. Lack of cooperation from the appellant led to an ex-parte order. The tribunal required a specified pre-deposit amount for interim relief, allowing a waiver for the balance demand during the appeal's pendency. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 31 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258546