https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449286 CESTAT Kolkata allowed the appeal, setting aside the service tax demand and penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant engaged in transportation, bundling, and feeding of bamboo, and coal ash transportation services. The tribunal found that Revenue's confusion between Business Auxiliary Service and Cargo Handling Service classifications prevented invocation of extended limitation period. The show-cause notice was defective as it failed to specify particular clauses of Business Auxiliary Service. Additionally, the demand pre-July 2012 was time-barred, while post-July 2012 demand was unsustainable as no demand was made under the negative list regime that came into effect from that date. en-us Tue, 06 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Feb 2026 17:21:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449286 CESTAT Kolkata allowed the appeal, setting aside the service tax demand and penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant engaged in transportation, bundling, and feeding of bamboo, and coal ash transportation services. The tribunal found that Revenue's confusion between Business Auxiliary Service and Cargo Handling Service classifications prevented invocation of extended limitation period. The show-cause notice was defective as it failed to specify particular clauses of Business Auxiliary Service. Additionally, the demand pre-July 2012 was time-barred, while post-July 2012 demand was unsustainable as no demand was made under the negative list regime that came into effect from that date. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 06 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449286