https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=376091 The Tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant, setting aside the demands under Cargo Handling Service categories. It upheld the portion of the demand related to Commercial and Industrial Construction Service and Supply of Tangible Goods. The Tribunal concluded that the activities in question did not qualify as Cargo Handling Service but fell under Goods Transport Agency, for which the appellant had already paid the liability. The penalty under Section 76 was also set aside as the entire service tax liability had been discharged before the show cause notice. en-us Wed, 13 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 02 Mar 2019 13:51:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=376091 The Tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant, setting aside the demands under Cargo Handling Service categories. It upheld the portion of the demand related to Commercial and Industrial Construction Service and Supply of Tangible Goods. The Tribunal concluded that the activities in question did not qualify as Cargo Handling Service but fell under Goods Transport Agency, for which the appellant had already paid the liability. The penalty under Section 76 was also set aside as the entire service tax liability had been discharged before the show cause notice. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 13 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=376091