https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365871 The Tribunal rejected the appellant's argument that the second show cause notice (SCN) was time-barred, upheld the taxability of contract bottling under Business Auxiliary Service (BAS), denied exemption under Notification No.39/2009-ST due to availing CENVAT credit, allowed eligibility for exemption upon reversing CENVAT credit and paying interest, and set aside penalty under Section 78 while upholding penalty under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant must reverse CENVAT credit, pay interest, and the matter was remanded for reworking service tax liability. en-us Mon, 20 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 25 Aug 2018 09:27:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365871 The Tribunal rejected the appellant's argument that the second show cause notice (SCN) was time-barred, upheld the taxability of contract bottling under Business Auxiliary Service (BAS), denied exemption under Notification No.39/2009-ST due to availing CENVAT credit, allowed eligibility for exemption upon reversing CENVAT credit and paying interest, and set aside penalty under Section 78 while upholding penalty under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant must reverse CENVAT credit, pay interest, and the matter was remanded for reworking service tax liability. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 20 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365871