https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753394 CESTAT Allahabad ruled in favor of the appellant in a service tax dispute involving toll charges, logistic charges, and other taxable services for 2012-17. The tribunal held that appellants were entitled to Rule 6(3A) benefits under CCR 2004 even without prior option exercise. Service tax demands on logistic charges were set aside as VAT was already paid, making service tax and VAT mutually exclusive. Toll collection service tax demands were rejected based on established precedent. Extended limitation period invocation was upheld for 2012-15 due to willful suppression, but demands for 2015-17 were set aside as they couldn't be raised via Statement of Demand. Interest and penalty were also set aside following demand rejection. en-us Wed, 24 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 01 Jun 2024 08:30:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753394 CESTAT Allahabad ruled in favor of the appellant in a service tax dispute involving toll charges, logistic charges, and other taxable services for 2012-17. The tribunal held that appellants were entitled to Rule 6(3A) benefits under CCR 2004 even without prior option exercise. Service tax demands on logistic charges were set aside as VAT was already paid, making service tax and VAT mutually exclusive. Toll collection service tax demands were rejected based on established precedent. Extended limitation period invocation was upheld for 2012-15 due to willful suppression, but demands for 2015-17 were set aside as they couldn't be raised via Statement of Demand. Interest and penalty were also set aside following demand rejection. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 24 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753394