https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329014 The Tribunal upheld the service tax demand on an individual operating a proprietary concern for providing Business Auxiliary Service without paying service tax, establishing that the individual qualified as a commercial concern liable for service tax. Additionally, the Tribunal clarified that the invocation of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, to set aside penalties does not prevent the application of the extended period for confirming demands in cases of suppression of facts. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the liability of the individual for service tax and the continued validity of the extended period for confirming demands despite the invocation of Section 80. en-us Thu, 26 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 17 Mar 2018 10:28:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329014 The Tribunal upheld the service tax demand on an individual operating a proprietary concern for providing Business Auxiliary Service without paying service tax, establishing that the individual qualified as a commercial concern liable for service tax. Additionally, the Tribunal clarified that the invocation of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, to set aside penalties does not prevent the application of the extended period for confirming demands in cases of suppression of facts. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the liability of the individual for service tax and the continued validity of the extended period for confirming demands despite the invocation of Section 80. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 26 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329014