https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365225 The Tribunal upheld the demand for service tax, interest, and penalties against the appellant, confirming their liability as the main service provider for advertising agency services. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's argument that payments were for renting property and found the appellant liable for service tax on payments received from advertising agencies. The appellant's actions were deemed as suppression of facts and tax evasion. The Tribunal modified the appellant's classification, determining they were not a sub-contractor, but maintained the penalties imposed. The decision on cenvat credit was not contested and remained in favor of the appellant. en-us Fri, 02 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 02 Apr 2026 18:02:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365225 The Tribunal upheld the demand for service tax, interest, and penalties against the appellant, confirming their liability as the main service provider for advertising agency services. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's argument that payments were for renting property and found the appellant liable for service tax on payments received from advertising agencies. The appellant's actions were deemed as suppression of facts and tax evasion. The Tribunal modified the appellant's classification, determining they were not a sub-contractor, but maintained the penalties imposed. The decision on cenvat credit was not contested and remained in favor of the appellant. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 02 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365225