https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374848 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the demands confirmed in the impugned order, including interest and penalties. The Tribunal held that the appellant did not discharge service tax liability under Erection, Commissioning and Installation Services (ECIS) and Commercial or Industrial Construction Services (CICS). It was determined that the demands under CICS were set aside due to composite contracts, and demands under ECIS were not applicable for the period in question. The abatement claimed by the appellant was found to be inapplicable to ECIS, supporting the department's position on tax liability. en-us Wed, 19 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 12 Feb 2019 07:04:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374848 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the demands confirmed in the impugned order, including interest and penalties. The Tribunal held that the appellant did not discharge service tax liability under Erection, Commissioning and Installation Services (ECIS) and Commercial or Industrial Construction Services (CICS). It was determined that the demands under CICS were set aside due to composite contracts, and demands under ECIS were not applicable for the period in question. The abatement claimed by the appellant was found to be inapplicable to ECIS, supporting the department's position on tax liability. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 19 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374848