https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448324 The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and upheld the decision of the Adjudicating Authority, which had dropped the show cause notice against the respondent. The Tribunal concluded that the respondent was not liable to pay 5%/6% of the value of the exempted service, as they had reversed the proportionate credit attributed to the exempted service, including interest. The Tribunal relied on precedents such as CCE vs. Himmat Glazed Tiles, determining that the demand for payment would not sustain when credit is appropriately reversed. en-us Wed, 27 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Jan 2024 08:42:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448324 The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and upheld the decision of the Adjudicating Authority, which had dropped the show cause notice against the respondent. The Tribunal concluded that the respondent was not liable to pay 5%/6% of the value of the exempted service, as they had reversed the proportionate credit attributed to the exempted service, including interest. The Tribunal relied on precedents such as CCE vs. Himmat Glazed Tiles, determining that the demand for payment would not sustain when credit is appropriately reversed. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 27 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448324