https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448126 CESTAT Chennai held that service tax demand under Business Auxiliary Service and Technical Inspection and Certification Service lacked factual and legal basis where no payment was made by appellant to the service provider. The tribunal ruled that if quality checking services existed, liability would fall on the actual service provider, not the appellant under reverse charge mechanism. Regarding GTA services, demand for extended period was set aside citing revenue neutrality principle per Nirlon Ltd case, as appellant would be eligible for cenvat credit. Tax liability for normal period was upheld with interest but penalties were entirely set aside due to revenue neutral situation. Appeal was partly allowed. en-us Thu, 11 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 12 Jan 2024 08:40:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448126 CESTAT Chennai held that service tax demand under Business Auxiliary Service and Technical Inspection and Certification Service lacked factual and legal basis where no payment was made by appellant to the service provider. The tribunal ruled that if quality checking services existed, liability would fall on the actual service provider, not the appellant under reverse charge mechanism. Regarding GTA services, demand for extended period was set aside citing revenue neutrality principle per Nirlon Ltd case, as appellant would be eligible for cenvat credit. Tax liability for normal period was upheld with interest but penalties were entirely set aside due to revenue neutral situation. Appeal was partly allowed. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 11 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448126