https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=388426 The Tribunal set aside the demand of Service Tax under "Erection, Commissioning or Installation Services" as the contract fell under "Works Contract Service." The demand under "Goods Transport Agency Services" was also dismissed due to lack of evidence. The demand for interest on mobilization advances was rejected as they were deemed secured loans. The extended period of limitation was not addressed, and penalties under the Finance Act, 1994 were set aside. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief. en-us Mon, 11 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 15 Nov 2019 12:20:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=388426 The Tribunal set aside the demand of Service Tax under "Erection, Commissioning or Installation Services" as the contract fell under "Works Contract Service." The demand under "Goods Transport Agency Services" was also dismissed due to lack of evidence. The demand for interest on mobilization advances was rejected as they were deemed secured loans. The extended period of limitation was not addressed, and penalties under the Finance Act, 1994 were set aside. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 11 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=388426