https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444868 CESTAT Ahmedabad allowed the appeal in a service tax case where the appellant provided erection, commissioning, installation and fabrication services as a sub-contractor. The HC held that due to conflicting board circulars and lack of clarity on sub-contractor liability during the relevant period (September 2005 to June 2009), no mala fide intention could be attributed to the appellant. The demand was time-barred as the SCN dated 18.10.2009 was issued beyond the normal limitation period, making the entire demand unsustainable. The impugned order was set aside. en-us Fri, 20 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 23 Oct 2023 14:52:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444868 CESTAT Ahmedabad allowed the appeal in a service tax case where the appellant provided erection, commissioning, installation and fabrication services as a sub-contractor. The HC held that due to conflicting board circulars and lack of clarity on sub-contractor liability during the relevant period (September 2005 to June 2009), no mala fide intention could be attributed to the appellant. The demand was time-barred as the SCN dated 18.10.2009 was issued beyond the normal limitation period, making the entire demand unsustainable. The impugned order was set aside. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 20 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444868