https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325435 The appellate tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the impugned order demanding payment of service tax under reverse charge mechanism was not sustainable. The tribunal clarified that Section 66 was the charging section for service tax before the introduction of Section 66A, making the appellant eligible for the credit. The tribunal also found that the appellant had acted in good faith by disclosing the credits in their returns, thus disallowing the invocation of the extended period of limitation for penalties. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the order and allowed the appeal, providing consequential relief to the appellant. en-us Mon, 29 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 15 Oct 2016 14:24:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325435 The appellate tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the impugned order demanding payment of service tax under reverse charge mechanism was not sustainable. The tribunal clarified that Section 66 was the charging section for service tax before the introduction of Section 66A, making the appellant eligible for the credit. The tribunal also found that the appellant had acted in good faith by disclosing the credits in their returns, thus disallowing the invocation of the extended period of limitation for penalties. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the order and allowed the appeal, providing consequential relief to the appellant. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 29 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325435