https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411539 The Tribunal held that the appellant was liable to pay Service Tax as a sub-contractor, allowing the main contractor to claim input tax credit. However, the demand invoking the extended period of limitation was not sustained due to conflicting views during the relevant period, leading to the appeal being allowed on the ground of limitation. Consequently, the penalties imposed under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act were set aside. en-us Wed, 25 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 17 Dec 2021 17:06:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411539 The Tribunal held that the appellant was liable to pay Service Tax as a sub-contractor, allowing the main contractor to claim input tax credit. However, the demand invoking the extended period of limitation was not sustained due to conflicting views during the relevant period, leading to the appeal being allowed on the ground of limitation. Consequently, the penalties imposed under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act were set aside. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 25 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411539