https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337998 The Tribunal confirmed the Service Tax liability of the appellant, a proprietor firm, along with interest and penalties under sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The demand for the period July 2004 to March 2007 was based on the appellant's service being treated as commission agent service falling under Business Auxiliary services. However, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the demand raised beyond the normal limitation period was time-barred due to the transparent reflection of activities in the balance sheet, with no suppression or malafide intent found. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief. en-us Fri, 23 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Jan 2017 18:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337998 The Tribunal confirmed the Service Tax liability of the appellant, a proprietor firm, along with interest and penalties under sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The demand for the period July 2004 to March 2007 was based on the appellant's service being treated as commission agent service falling under Business Auxiliary services. However, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the demand raised beyond the normal limitation period was time-barred due to the transparent reflection of activities in the balance sheet, with no suppression or malafide intent found. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 23 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337998