https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449414 The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeals filed by the appellant, a logistics company. The Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to specify the exact limb under the definition of 'Business Auxiliary Service' applicable to the appellant's activities. Without this specification, the demand for Service Tax under 'Business Auxiliary Service' could not be upheld. The Tribunal noted the differences in facts between the current case and a previous case with a Difference of Opinion, concluding that the appellant was not liable for the Service Tax demands. en-us Thu, 08 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Feb 2024 05:28:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449414 The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeals filed by the appellant, a logistics company. The Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to specify the exact limb under the definition of 'Business Auxiliary Service' applicable to the appellant's activities. Without this specification, the demand for Service Tax under 'Business Auxiliary Service' could not be upheld. The Tribunal noted the differences in facts between the current case and a previous case with a Difference of Opinion, concluding that the appellant was not liable for the Service Tax demands. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 08 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449414