https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345538 Denial of abatement under Notification No. 9/2004-ST was held unsustainable because the show cause notice had itself quantified demand after allowing the 60% abatement and did not allege breach of the condition regarding non-availment of Cenvat credit. The lower authorities could not deny the benefit on a ground not stated in the notice. Service tax liability also had to be re-quantified with reference to the date of provision of service, since the applicable rate depends on that date and the factual basis had not been examined. The matter was remanded for fresh quantification, without reopening the abatement issue. en-us Fri, 07 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 21 Aug 2017 15:51:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345538 Denial of abatement under Notification No. 9/2004-ST was held unsustainable because the show cause notice had itself quantified demand after allowing the 60% abatement and did not allege breach of the condition regarding non-availment of Cenvat credit. The lower authorities could not deny the benefit on a ground not stated in the notice. Service tax liability also had to be re-quantified with reference to the date of provision of service, since the applicable rate depends on that date and the factual basis had not been examined. The matter was remanded for fresh quantification, without reopening the abatement issue. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 07 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345538