https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353113 The Tribunal remanded the case to the original adjudicating authority to ascertain whether the activities constituted manufacture, impacting liability for service tax under Business Auxiliary Services. The extended period for demand was deemed inapplicable due to the absence of evidence of suppression. Consequently, the imposition of interest and penalties was considered unsustainable pending reevaluation. The Tribunal underscored the relevance of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, in potentially mitigating penalties based on reasonable cause, emphasizing consistency in legal interpretation and application. en-us Wed, 13 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 28 Dec 2017 07:51:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353113 The Tribunal remanded the case to the original adjudicating authority to ascertain whether the activities constituted manufacture, impacting liability for service tax under Business Auxiliary Services. The extended period for demand was deemed inapplicable due to the absence of evidence of suppression. Consequently, the imposition of interest and penalties was considered unsustainable pending reevaluation. The Tribunal underscored the relevance of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, in potentially mitigating penalties based on reasonable cause, emphasizing consistency in legal interpretation and application. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 13 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353113