https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269375 A service tax demand based on alleged dual benefit under Notification No. 1/2006-ST and Notification No. 12/03-ST was not sustained because the record did not prove that both notifications had actually been availed. The ST-3 return was found to reflect only confusion between the terms "abatement" and "exemption", and the disclosed figures did not establish double benefit. The absence of any allegation or evidence of Cenvat credit having been taken on inputs, capital goods, or input services further undermined the demand. With no material showing inconsistency with the exemption conditions, the allegation of wrongful dual benefit failed. en-us Wed, 03 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 17 Sep 2016 15:20:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269375 A service tax demand based on alleged dual benefit under Notification No. 1/2006-ST and Notification No. 12/03-ST was not sustained because the record did not prove that both notifications had actually been availed. The ST-3 return was found to reflect only confusion between the terms "abatement" and "exemption", and the disclosed figures did not establish double benefit. The absence of any allegation or evidence of Cenvat credit having been taken on inputs, capital goods, or input services further undermined the demand. With no material showing inconsistency with the exemption conditions, the allegation of wrongful dual benefit failed. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 03 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269375