https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354352 The Tribunal classified the services provided by the appellant as cargo handling services instead of GTA services. However, the service tax demand was limited to the normal period of limitation as suppression or misstatement could not be proven. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant that the proceedings were time-barred for the disputed period of 2003-07, setting aside the penalty and directing the quantification of the service tax demand within the normal period of limitation, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant. en-us Thu, 09 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 25 Jan 2018 09:52:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354352 The Tribunal classified the services provided by the appellant as cargo handling services instead of GTA services. However, the service tax demand was limited to the normal period of limitation as suppression or misstatement could not be proven. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant that the proceedings were time-barred for the disputed period of 2003-07, setting aside the penalty and directing the quantification of the service tax demand within the normal period of limitation, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 09 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354352