https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348315 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, determining that the services provided did not constitute Cargo Handling Services. The demand raised against the appellant was deemed unjustified as there was no evidence of suppression or intentional misstatement. The invocation of the longer period of limitation was considered unwarranted due to confusion in the tax law at the time and the lack of proof of any wrongdoing by the appellant. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the demand, providing relief to the appellant. en-us Thu, 14 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 17 Nov 2017 10:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348315 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, determining that the services provided did not constitute Cargo Handling Services. The demand raised against the appellant was deemed unjustified as there was no evidence of suppression or intentional misstatement. The invocation of the longer period of limitation was considered unwarranted due to confusion in the tax law at the time and the lack of proof of any wrongdoing by the appellant. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the demand, providing relief to the appellant. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 14 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348315