https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358802 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Appellant, determining that their services should be classified under "Works Contract" rather than "Erection, Commissioning and Installation." It held that no service tax could be demanded for the period prior to 01.06.2007 and that the services related to roads were not chargeable to service tax post that date. The Tribunal found that the adjudicating authority failed to comply with its remand order and that the demand made under "Works Contract" for the period after 01.06.2007 exceeded the scope of the show cause notice. Additionally, it concluded that the demand was time-barred and set aside the penalties imposed on the Appellant. en-us Tue, 27 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 18 Feb 2019 11:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358802 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Appellant, determining that their services should be classified under "Works Contract" rather than "Erection, Commissioning and Installation." It held that no service tax could be demanded for the period prior to 01.06.2007 and that the services related to roads were not chargeable to service tax post that date. The Tribunal found that the adjudicating authority failed to comply with its remand order and that the demand made under "Works Contract" for the period after 01.06.2007 exceeded the scope of the show cause notice. Additionally, it concluded that the demand was time-barred and set aside the penalties imposed on the Appellant. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 27 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358802