https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34222 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, determining that the services provided aligned more with a commission agent rather than a clearing and forwarding agent. The demand for tax and penalties for the period October 2000 to March 2005 was found to be barred by limitation due to conflicting decisions and the appellant's genuine belief of non-liability. The invocation of the extended period of limitation was rejected based on the appellant's procedural failures stemming from their bona fide belief. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief. en-us Fri, 15 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 06 Mar 2010 19:45:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34222 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, determining that the services provided aligned more with a commission agent rather than a clearing and forwarding agent. The demand for tax and penalties for the period October 2000 to March 2005 was found to be barred by limitation due to conflicting decisions and the appellant's genuine belief of non-liability. The invocation of the extended period of limitation was rejected based on the appellant's procedural failures stemming from their bona fide belief. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 15 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34222