https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758836 CESTAT New Delhi held that appellant providing vehicles to clients with retained ownership constituted rent-a-cab service liable for service tax. The tribunal found extended limitation period correctly invoked due to suppression, as appellant had service tax registration since 2001-02 but stopped filing returns after 2005, showing intent to evade tax. Interest demand was upheld as compensatory for withheld tax payments. While penalty under Section 77 was confirmed, appellant qualified for reduced penalty under Section 78 having paid tax and interest before the original order date. Appeal partially allowed regarding penalty reduction. en-us Wed, 18 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 Sep 2024 10:17:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758836 CESTAT New Delhi held that appellant providing vehicles to clients with retained ownership constituted rent-a-cab service liable for service tax. The tribunal found extended limitation period correctly invoked due to suppression, as appellant had service tax registration since 2001-02 but stopped filing returns after 2005, showing intent to evade tax. Interest demand was upheld as compensatory for withheld tax payments. While penalty under Section 77 was confirmed, appellant qualified for reduced penalty under Section 78 having paid tax and interest before the original order date. Appeal partially allowed regarding penalty reduction. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 18 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758836