https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=388784 The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT ALLAHABAD ruled in favor of the appellant in a case concerning the interpretation of Rule 6 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. The Tribunal held that the explanation added in May 2008 was prospective, not retrospective, and required factual verification of actual payment to a foreign service provider. Due to the lack of relevant documents and unsustainable confirmation of demand based solely on book provisions, the demand for the period in question was deemed time-barred. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the impugned order and emphasizing the importance of factual verification and adherence to statutory limitations in tax assessments. en-us Thu, 11 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 23 Nov 2019 09:54:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=388784 The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT ALLAHABAD ruled in favor of the appellant in a case concerning the interpretation of Rule 6 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. The Tribunal held that the explanation added in May 2008 was prospective, not retrospective, and required factual verification of actual payment to a foreign service provider. Due to the lack of relevant documents and unsustainable confirmation of demand based solely on book provisions, the demand for the period in question was deemed time-barred. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the impugned order and emphasizing the importance of factual verification and adherence to statutory limitations in tax assessments. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 11 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=388784