https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372344 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, determining that the activity of collecting amounts from customers should be classified as Recovery Agent Service, not Business Auxiliary Service (BAS). The demand for service tax on reimbursable expenses was set aside as they were considered actual expenses. Additionally, the demands made under the extended period were deemed time-barred due to the department's failure to establish suppression of facts. Consequently, the Tribunal modified the orders, setting aside the demands on BAS and reimbursable expenses, ultimately allowing the appeals with consequential relief. en-us Tue, 18 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 21 Dec 2018 06:51:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372344 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, determining that the activity of collecting amounts from customers should be classified as Recovery Agent Service, not Business Auxiliary Service (BAS). The demand for service tax on reimbursable expenses was set aside as they were considered actual expenses. Additionally, the demands made under the extended period were deemed time-barred due to the department's failure to establish suppression of facts. Consequently, the Tribunal modified the orders, setting aside the demands on BAS and reimbursable expenses, ultimately allowing the appeals with consequential relief. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 18 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372344