https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271054 The Tribunal upheld the classification of services under Business Auxiliary Service (BAS) for the appellant, rejecting the contention that the services did not fall under BAS. It ruled that the confusion in classification did not warrant invoking the extended period for demand as the appellant failed to demonstrate a reasonable belief that the service was not covered under BAS. The Tribunal set aside the penalty under section 76 and reduced the penalty under section 78 to 25% of the total amount, subject to timely payment by the respondent of the service tax, interest, and the reduced penalty within 30 days. en-us Thu, 19 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 17 Sep 2016 15:56:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271054 The Tribunal upheld the classification of services under Business Auxiliary Service (BAS) for the appellant, rejecting the contention that the services did not fall under BAS. It ruled that the confusion in classification did not warrant invoking the extended period for demand as the appellant failed to demonstrate a reasonable belief that the service was not covered under BAS. The Tribunal set aside the penalty under section 76 and reduced the penalty under section 78 to 25% of the total amount, subject to timely payment by the respondent of the service tax, interest, and the reduced penalty within 30 days. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 19 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271054