https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327804 The appeal was dismissed by the tribunal as it found no issues with the order confirming the service tax demand, education cess, and interest. The appellant contested only the demand of interest, arguing that since direct payments were made to sub-contractors, it should not be liable for interest. However, the tribunal determined that the payments were made on behalf of the appellant, indicating liability. Therefore, the appellant was deemed to have received the payments and was held liable for interest if the service tax was paid late. en-us Fri, 01 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 21 Sep 2016 17:17:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327804 The appeal was dismissed by the tribunal as it found no issues with the order confirming the service tax demand, education cess, and interest. The appellant contested only the demand of interest, arguing that since direct payments were made to sub-contractors, it should not be liable for interest. However, the tribunal determined that the payments were made on behalf of the appellant, indicating liability. Therefore, the appellant was deemed to have received the payments and was held liable for interest if the service tax was paid late. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 01 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327804