https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436325 The appellant, a sub-contractor providing Construction Services, was held liable to pay service tax despite the principal contractors already discharging the tax liability. The Tribunal emphasized no exemption for sub-contractors and cited the CENVAT Credit Rules to prevent double taxation. The extended period of limitation was not applicable due to conflicting views and a bona fide belief. Penalties under Sections 77 and 78 were not imposed considering the lack of intent to evade tax and revenue neutrality. The appeal concluded with the appellant being liable for service tax within the normal limitation period, without penalties. en-us Mon, 10 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 10 Apr 2023 19:36:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436325 The appellant, a sub-contractor providing Construction Services, was held liable to pay service tax despite the principal contractors already discharging the tax liability. The Tribunal emphasized no exemption for sub-contractors and cited the CENVAT Credit Rules to prevent double taxation. The extended period of limitation was not applicable due to conflicting views and a bona fide belief. Penalties under Sections 77 and 78 were not imposed considering the lack of intent to evade tax and revenue neutrality. The appeal concluded with the appellant being liable for service tax within the normal limitation period, without penalties. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 10 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436325