https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335840 The Tribunal held that the appellant's activities were classifiable under Commercial and Industrial Construction Services (CICS) rather than Erection, Commissioning, or Installation Services (ECIS). It determined that the contract was a composite works contract, exempt from service tax, and rejected the extended period for demand and penalties. The appeal was allowed on merits, emphasizing that the issue of classification could be raised at any stage. The Tribunal did not address other submissions and set aside the impugned order. en-us Tue, 06 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 01 Sep 2017 11:06:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335840 The Tribunal held that the appellant's activities were classifiable under Commercial and Industrial Construction Services (CICS) rather than Erection, Commissioning, or Installation Services (ECIS). It determined that the contract was a composite works contract, exempt from service tax, and rejected the extended period for demand and penalties. The appeal was allowed on merits, emphasizing that the issue of classification could be raised at any stage. The Tribunal did not address other submissions and set aside the impugned order. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 06 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335840