https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358659 The note addresses whether a service tax demand against a sub-contractor was barred by limitation. It states that the demand related to a period beyond one year from the show cause notice, and that prior Board clarifications had suggested a sub-contractor need not separately pay service tax where the main contractor had discharged the liability. Although that understanding lacked legal sanctity after the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, it was treated as supporting a bona fide belief against registration and payment. Without examining taxability on merits, the demand was held time-barred and the appeal succeeded on limitation alone. en-us Tue, 27 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 17 Apr 2018 06:19:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358659 The note addresses whether a service tax demand against a sub-contractor was barred by limitation. It states that the demand related to a period beyond one year from the show cause notice, and that prior Board clarifications had suggested a sub-contractor need not separately pay service tax where the main contractor had discharged the liability. Although that understanding lacked legal sanctity after the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, it was treated as supporting a bona fide belief against registration and payment. Without examining taxability on merits, the demand was held time-barred and the appeal succeeded on limitation alone. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 27 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358659