https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385812 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant on all issues. It held that the services provided by the appellant did not qualify as Cargo Handling Service before 1.7.2003. Additionally, it found that the demand for service tax on Cargo Handling Service before the specified date was unsustainable. The Tribunal also agreed with the appellant's contention that their services at a minor port were not subject to service tax before 1.7.2003 based on a bona fide belief. Furthermore, it determined that the demand for service tax from 16.8.2002 to 30.6.2003 was time-barred due to the absence of evidence of fraudulent intent or suppression of facts by the appellant. en-us Thu, 12 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 Sep 2019 12:12:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385812 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant on all issues. It held that the services provided by the appellant did not qualify as Cargo Handling Service before 1.7.2003. Additionally, it found that the demand for service tax on Cargo Handling Service before the specified date was unsustainable. The Tribunal also agreed with the appellant's contention that their services at a minor port were not subject to service tax before 1.7.2003 based on a bona fide belief. Furthermore, it determined that the demand for service tax from 16.8.2002 to 30.6.2003 was time-barred due to the absence of evidence of fraudulent intent or suppression of facts by the appellant. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 12 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385812