https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332763 The Tribunal upheld the appellants' liability for service tax under Business Auxiliary Services (BAS) but limited the confirmation of the demand to the normal period of limitation, rejecting the extended period demand. The appellants' activities were deemed taxable under BAS, and their bonafide belief regarding service tax liability was acknowledged. The revenue sharing arrangement with RSIC did not exempt them from tax liability. The Tribunal concluded that no double taxation occurred as the tax liability was based on the consideration received by the appellants. en-us Tue, 23 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 Feb 2017 17:45:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332763 The Tribunal upheld the appellants' liability for service tax under Business Auxiliary Services (BAS) but limited the confirmation of the demand to the normal period of limitation, rejecting the extended period demand. The appellants' activities were deemed taxable under BAS, and their bonafide belief regarding service tax liability was acknowledged. The revenue sharing arrangement with RSIC did not exempt them from tax liability. The Tribunal concluded that no double taxation occurred as the tax liability was based on the consideration received by the appellants. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 23 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332763