https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391945 The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and allowed both appeals concerning service tax demand and abatement eligibility. It concluded that the services provided by the appellant were distinct, with separate agreements for equipment supply, thus abatement was admissible. The Tribunal emphasized adherence to judicial precedents and granted abatement under Rule 2(A)(ii) of the Service Tax (Value of Determination) Rules, 2006, affirming the appellant's position. The miscellaneous application was also disposed of, reinforcing the importance of judicial discipline. en-us Thu, 28 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Nov 2024 11:57:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391945 The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and allowed both appeals concerning service tax demand and abatement eligibility. It concluded that the services provided by the appellant were distinct, with separate agreements for equipment supply, thus abatement was admissible. The Tribunal emphasized adherence to judicial precedents and granted abatement under Rule 2(A)(ii) of the Service Tax (Value of Determination) Rules, 2006, affirming the appellant's position. The miscellaneous application was also disposed of, reinforcing the importance of judicial discipline. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 28 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391945