https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349298 The tribunal upheld the demand for service tax on IT services received by the appellant from their associated company under the reverse charge mechanism. It found the cost-sharing arrangement constituted a service provider-recipient relationship, attracting service tax liability. The tribunal justified the invocation of the extended period of limitation for demanding service tax due to the appellant's failure to disclose relevant facts. Additionally, the appellant's claim for Cenvat credit was denied due to lack of supporting evidence. The tribunal upheld the penalty imposed on the appellant, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. en-us Mon, 25 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 14 Feb 2018 16:51:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349298 The tribunal upheld the demand for service tax on IT services received by the appellant from their associated company under the reverse charge mechanism. It found the cost-sharing arrangement constituted a service provider-recipient relationship, attracting service tax liability. The tribunal justified the invocation of the extended period of limitation for demanding service tax due to the appellant's failure to disclose relevant facts. Additionally, the appellant's claim for Cenvat credit was denied due to lack of supporting evidence. The tribunal upheld the penalty imposed on the appellant, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 25 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349298