https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379254 The impugned order confirming the demand of service tax, interest, and penalty under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 was set aside. The case was remanded for fresh adjudication and re-quantification based on the specific services provided under the contracts, emphasizing the need to align services with the definitions under the Finance Act for accurate tax liability determination. The appellant's argument regarding the benefit of Section 80 was rejected due to their awareness of the law and failure to remit collected service tax to the government. en-us Wed, 24 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 30 Apr 2019 14:43:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379254 The impugned order confirming the demand of service tax, interest, and penalty under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 was set aside. The case was remanded for fresh adjudication and re-quantification based on the specific services provided under the contracts, emphasizing the need to align services with the definitions under the Finance Act for accurate tax liability determination. The appellant's argument regarding the benefit of Section 80 was rejected due to their awareness of the law and failure to remit collected service tax to the government. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 24 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379254