https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448127 The CESTAT Chennai set aside demands for Business Auxiliary Service and Technical Inspection and Certification Service, finding no factual or legal basis as the appellant made no payments to the service provider. The tribunal ruled that if services were rendered, the liability would fall on the actual service provider, not the appellant. Regarding GTA Service, the extended period of limitation was rejected citing revenue-neutral situation per SC precedent, but tax liability for normal period was upheld. Penalties were entirely set aside due to revenue-neutral circumstances. Appeal was allowed in part. en-us Thu, 11 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 12 Jan 2024 08:40:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448127 The CESTAT Chennai set aside demands for Business Auxiliary Service and Technical Inspection and Certification Service, finding no factual or legal basis as the appellant made no payments to the service provider. The tribunal ruled that if services were rendered, the liability would fall on the actual service provider, not the appellant. Regarding GTA Service, the extended period of limitation was rejected citing revenue-neutral situation per SC precedent, but tax liability for normal period was upheld. Penalties were entirely set aside due to revenue-neutral circumstances. Appeal was allowed in part. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 11 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448127