https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195689 The Tribunal allowed the appeal on the grounds of time-bar, ruling that the demand for an extended period was not sustainable for a single transaction in 2005 where the appellant acted as an intermediary for their sister concern. The tax liability under Business Auxiliary Service was upheld, except for the penalty under Section 76, which was set aside. The penalties under Sections 76 & 78 were imposed but the penalty under Section 76 was also set aside. The Tribunal found that the demand for an extended period was not sustainable based on the appellant's records, leading to the appeal being allowed on the question of time-bar. en-us Wed, 04 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 07 Nov 2017 19:33:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195689 The Tribunal allowed the appeal on the grounds of time-bar, ruling that the demand for an extended period was not sustainable for a single transaction in 2005 where the appellant acted as an intermediary for their sister concern. The tax liability under Business Auxiliary Service was upheld, except for the penalty under Section 76, which was set aside. The penalties under Sections 76 & 78 were imposed but the penalty under Section 76 was also set aside. The Tribunal found that the demand for an extended period was not sustainable based on the appellant's records, leading to the appeal being allowed on the question of time-bar. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 04 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195689