https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286243 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the demand and penalty imposed on the appellant. It held that the rule declaring a service as non-output under the Cenvat Credit Rules conflicted with the Finance Act and was ultra vires. The show cause notice was deemed not maintainable, providing clarity on tax liability under the Reverse Charge Mechanism and the validity of demands based on specific rules. The appellant was entitled to consequential benefits in line with the law, emphasizing the need for rules to align with the overarching legislation. en-us Wed, 01 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 18 Feb 2020 08:28:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286243 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the demand and penalty imposed on the appellant. It held that the rule declaring a service as non-output under the Cenvat Credit Rules conflicted with the Finance Act and was ultra vires. The show cause notice was deemed not maintainable, providing clarity on tax liability under the Reverse Charge Mechanism and the validity of demands based on specific rules. The appellant was entitled to consequential benefits in line with the law, emphasizing the need for rules to align with the overarching legislation. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 01 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286243