https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754352 CESTAT Ahmedabad held that transport/insurance charges received by the appellant should not be included in the gross value of erection and installation services for transmission towers. The tribunal found these were separate and independent activities under distinct contract provisions with separate considerations, not ancillary services. The revenue's classification of transportation/insurance as incidental to installation services was incorrect. Additionally, the extended limitation period was improperly invoked without valid suppression allegations. The demand was time-barred under normal limitation period. Appeal allowed, impugned order set aside. en-us Thu, 20 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 21 Jun 2024 12:13:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754352 CESTAT Ahmedabad held that transport/insurance charges received by the appellant should not be included in the gross value of erection and installation services for transmission towers. The tribunal found these were separate and independent activities under distinct contract provisions with separate considerations, not ancillary services. The revenue's classification of transportation/insurance as incidental to installation services was incorrect. Additionally, the extended limitation period was improperly invoked without valid suppression allegations. The demand was time-barred under normal limitation period. Appeal allowed, impugned order set aside. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 20 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754352