https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380374 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Appellants, holding that the demands for service tax on Man Power Recruitment and Supply Services were not sustainable due to lack of intention to evade tax and the absence of suppression of facts. The invocation of the extended period of limitation for demanding duty was rejected, as the Appellants' lack of awareness and confusion regarding tax liability, coupled with proper record-keeping, indicated the demands were time-barred. The services provided were classified as Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency services liable for service tax, but penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78 were set aside due to the Appellants' genuine belief that their services were not taxable and the absence of willful evasion. en-us Tue, 14 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 20 May 2019 07:02:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380374 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Appellants, holding that the demands for service tax on Man Power Recruitment and Supply Services were not sustainable due to lack of intention to evade tax and the absence of suppression of facts. The invocation of the extended period of limitation for demanding duty was rejected, as the Appellants' lack of awareness and confusion regarding tax liability, coupled with proper record-keeping, indicated the demands were time-barred. The services provided were classified as Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency services liable for service tax, but penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78 were set aside due to the Appellants' genuine belief that their services were not taxable and the absence of willful evasion. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 14 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380374