https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374856 The appellant's appeal was partly allowed and partly rejected. The demand for service tax liability as a sub-contractor for the period April 2004 to March 2007 was set aside due to the main contractor discharging the tax liability. However, the demand for manpower recruitment services was upheld. The demand for fabrication and erection work was not sustained. The argument for small-scale service provider exemption was rejected. Penalties were set aside in certain instances due to misinterpretation of provisions. en-us Thu, 27 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 12 Feb 2019 12:01:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374856 The appellant's appeal was partly allowed and partly rejected. The demand for service tax liability as a sub-contractor for the period April 2004 to March 2007 was set aside due to the main contractor discharging the tax liability. However, the demand for manpower recruitment services was upheld. The demand for fabrication and erection work was not sustained. The argument for small-scale service provider exemption was rejected. Penalties were set aside in certain instances due to misinterpretation of provisions. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 27 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374856