https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361974 The Tribunal upheld the service tax demand for the disputed period, rejecting the appellant's argument that the service tax had already been paid under the reverse charge mechanism. It was determined that the services provided fell under Business Auxiliary Service (BAS) and not Insurance Business. Additionally, penalties under Sections 76 and 78 were deemed applicable due to the appellant's failure to file relevant returns and pay service tax, as supported by a recent judgment. The appeal was rejected, affirming the liability for service tax under BAS and the imposition of penalties. en-us Wed, 16 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 18 Jun 2018 08:11:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361974 The Tribunal upheld the service tax demand for the disputed period, rejecting the appellant's argument that the service tax had already been paid under the reverse charge mechanism. It was determined that the services provided fell under Business Auxiliary Service (BAS) and not Insurance Business. Additionally, penalties under Sections 76 and 78 were deemed applicable due to the appellant's failure to file relevant returns and pay service tax, as supported by a recent judgment. The appeal was rejected, affirming the liability for service tax under BAS and the imposition of penalties. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 16 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361974