https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358619 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Appellant, determining that their services were correctly classifiable as Works Contract Service. It held that the Appellant was eligible for the composition scheme under Works Contract, emphasizing that the scheme could be opted for ongoing projects and could not be denied based solely on past service tax payments under a different category. The Tribunal also found the imposition of penalties unjustified, citing the evolving legal position on tax liability for composite works contracts. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the demand for differential service tax and penalties. en-us Thu, 22 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 Apr 2018 06:08:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358619 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Appellant, determining that their services were correctly classifiable as Works Contract Service. It held that the Appellant was eligible for the composition scheme under Works Contract, emphasizing that the scheme could be opted for ongoing projects and could not be denied based solely on past service tax payments under a different category. The Tribunal also found the imposition of penalties unjustified, citing the evolving legal position on tax liability for composite works contracts. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the demand for differential service tax and penalties. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 22 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358619