https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267665 The tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the appeals solely on the limitation grounds. The tribunal held that the demands raised beyond the limitation period could not be enforced, providing relief to the appellant in terms of service tax liability, interest, and penalties. The appellant's argument that their activities were not taxable under 'Business Auxiliary Services' due to their main hospitality business was rejected, with the tribunal emphasizing the appellant's role as an agent for Thomas Cook in the restricted money exchange business. en-us Wed, 15 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 15 Jan 2016 12:13:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267665 The tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the appeals solely on the limitation grounds. The tribunal held that the demands raised beyond the limitation period could not be enforced, providing relief to the appellant in terms of service tax liability, interest, and penalties. The appellant's argument that their activities were not taxable under 'Business Auxiliary Services' due to their main hospitality business was rejected, with the tribunal emphasizing the appellant's role as an agent for Thomas Cook in the restricted money exchange business. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 15 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267665