https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365325 The judgment confirmed the duty demand against the appellant for Security Agent Services provided. The appellant's arguments on usage of security guards were deemed insufficient. The demand was upheld within the limitation period, with the tribunal acknowledging the appellant's genuine belief on tax liability. The cum-duty benefit was granted, and penalty imposition was set aside due to no malafide intent found. The appeal was disposed of, emphasizing considerations on demand confirmation, exemption claim, limitation grounds, cum-duty benefit, and penalty imposition, reflecting a balanced approach to the complexities of service tax laws. en-us Thu, 28 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 Aug 2018 07:10:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365325 The judgment confirmed the duty demand against the appellant for Security Agent Services provided. The appellant's arguments on usage of security guards were deemed insufficient. The demand was upheld within the limitation period, with the tribunal acknowledging the appellant's genuine belief on tax liability. The cum-duty benefit was granted, and penalty imposition was set aside due to no malafide intent found. The appeal was disposed of, emphasizing considerations on demand confirmation, exemption claim, limitation grounds, cum-duty benefit, and penalty imposition, reflecting a balanced approach to the complexities of service tax laws. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 28 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365325