https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339476 The Tribunal held that the appellant was not liable to pay service tax under Business Auxiliary Service (BAS) for managing and operating hospitality and conference facilities. Additionally, the appellant was entitled to abatement under notification no. 1/06-ST for "Mandap Keeper Service" despite availing cenvat credit. The penalties imposed under Sections 76, 77, and 78 were set aside due to the findings. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, and the impugned orders were set aside as they were found not legally sustainable. en-us Fri, 20 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 06 Nov 2017 14:37:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339476 The Tribunal held that the appellant was not liable to pay service tax under Business Auxiliary Service (BAS) for managing and operating hospitality and conference facilities. Additionally, the appellant was entitled to abatement under notification no. 1/06-ST for "Mandap Keeper Service" despite availing cenvat credit. The penalties imposed under Sections 76, 77, and 78 were set aside due to the findings. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, and the impugned orders were set aside as they were found not legally sustainable. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 20 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339476