https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=394169 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the Principal Commissioner's order. The demand for service tax for the period April 2009 to June 2012 was not sustained as the services provided did not classify as 'business auxiliary service' (BAS). The demand for the period July 2012 to March 2014 was dropped due to lack of consideration for refraining from providing warranty services. The issues of the extended period of limitation and violation of natural justice were not addressed as the primary demands were not maintainable. en-us Mon, 24 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 03 Apr 2020 11:21:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=394169 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the Principal Commissioner's order. The demand for service tax for the period April 2009 to June 2012 was not sustained as the services provided did not classify as 'business auxiliary service' (BAS). The demand for the period July 2012 to March 2014 was dropped due to lack of consideration for refraining from providing warranty services. The issues of the extended period of limitation and violation of natural justice were not addressed as the primary demands were not maintainable. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 24 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=394169