https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356653 The appeal was partly allowed, with the Tribunal setting aside the penalty under Section 76 and granting the benefit of cum duty price for recalculating the service tax demand. The matter was remanded to the original adjudicating authority for revised calculations and consequent penalties. The Tribunal upheld the liability of sub-contractors to pay service tax and justified the invocation of the extended period of limitation due to mis-declaration by the appellant. en-us Wed, 28 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 21 Mar 2018 10:48:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356653 The appeal was partly allowed, with the Tribunal setting aside the penalty under Section 76 and granting the benefit of cum duty price for recalculating the service tax demand. The matter was remanded to the original adjudicating authority for revised calculations and consequent penalties. The Tribunal upheld the liability of sub-contractors to pay service tax and justified the invocation of the extended period of limitation due to mis-declaration by the appellant. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 28 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356653