https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450779 The appeal was partially allowed as the demands for service tax, interest, and penalties on blasting and painting services, consultancy charges, and repair and maintenance services were set aside. The CESTAT found that the Revenue failed to provide sufficient evidence and documentation to support the demands, and acknowledged that repair and maintenance services are not subject to the reverse charge mechanism. Consequently, the appellant's arguments were accepted, and the demands were deemed unsustainable. The balance demand was not contested by the appellant and was also set aside. en-us Tue, 05 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Mar 2024 08:41:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450779 The appeal was partially allowed as the demands for service tax, interest, and penalties on blasting and painting services, consultancy charges, and repair and maintenance services were set aside. The CESTAT found that the Revenue failed to provide sufficient evidence and documentation to support the demands, and acknowledged that repair and maintenance services are not subject to the reverse charge mechanism. Consequently, the appellant's arguments were accepted, and the demands were deemed unsustainable. The balance demand was not contested by the appellant and was also set aside. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 05 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450779