https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383259 The tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, determining that their manufacturing activity of beer under a brand name fell under the amended definition of Business Auxiliary Service (BAS). The tribunal also held that the appointed date of amalgamation should be considered for service tax liability and that the demand was barred by limitation due to the absence of willful suppression of facts. As a result, the tribunal set aside the previous order and allowed the appeal. en-us Thu, 11 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 20 Jul 2019 07:43:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383259 The tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, determining that their manufacturing activity of beer under a brand name fell under the amended definition of Business Auxiliary Service (BAS). The tribunal also held that the appointed date of amalgamation should be considered for service tax liability and that the demand was barred by limitation due to the absence of willful suppression of facts. As a result, the tribunal set aside the previous order and allowed the appeal. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 11 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383259