https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=406694 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, finding that the demand for service tax under the Business Support Services (BSS) category for the disputed period was not sustainable. It held that the cross charges from overseas group companies did not fall under BSS and that expenses related to travel reimbursement and third-party vendor cross charges were not taxable under the Finance Act. The Tribunal also determined that the employee-cost cross charges qualified as export of services and that the invocation of the extended period of limitation was incorrect due to lack of evidence of fraud or suppression of facts. The appellant's appeal was allowed, and the demand was set aside. en-us Mon, 19 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 27 Apr 2022 10:37:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=406694 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, finding that the demand for service tax under the Business Support Services (BSS) category for the disputed period was not sustainable. It held that the cross charges from overseas group companies did not fall under BSS and that expenses related to travel reimbursement and third-party vendor cross charges were not taxable under the Finance Act. The Tribunal also determined that the employee-cost cross charges qualified as export of services and that the invocation of the extended period of limitation was incorrect due to lack of evidence of fraud or suppression of facts. The appellant's appeal was allowed, and the demand was set aside. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 19 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=406694