https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414122 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the demand of service tax for the period 1.4.2014 to 30.9.2015. It found that the appellant was not acting as an intermediary but rather as a sub-contractor, receiving commission for services provided in India. Penalties under Section 76 and Section 77 of the Finance Act were also set aside, along with the demand, due to lack of sustainability. The Tribunal emphasized the principle of res adjudicata, leading to the appeal being allowed with consequential relief. en-us Thu, 28 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 29 Oct 2021 04:48:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414122 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the demand of service tax for the period 1.4.2014 to 30.9.2015. It found that the appellant was not acting as an intermediary but rather as a sub-contractor, receiving commission for services provided in India. Penalties under Section 76 and Section 77 of the Finance Act were also set aside, along with the demand, due to lack of sustainability. The Tribunal emphasized the principle of res adjudicata, leading to the appeal being allowed with consequential relief. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 28 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414122