https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286231 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the demand for service tax, interest, and penalty. It held that the appellant, a sub-contractor, was not liable for double taxation as the main contractors had already paid the service tax. The Tribunal also ruled that there was no malafide intention to evade tax, thus overturning the penalty imposition. Additionally, it determined that the appellant was not liable for service tax under the pre-amendment definition of taxable services, as the services were rendered before the legislative change in the Finance Act, 2008. en-us Tue, 04 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 05 Mar 2020 11:42:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286231 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the demand for service tax, interest, and penalty. It held that the appellant, a sub-contractor, was not liable for double taxation as the main contractors had already paid the service tax. The Tribunal also ruled that there was no malafide intention to evade tax, thus overturning the penalty imposition. Additionally, it determined that the appellant was not liable for service tax under the pre-amendment definition of taxable services, as the services were rendered before the legislative change in the Finance Act, 2008. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 04 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286231