https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768657 CESTAT Chennai classified appellant's services as works contract service under Section 65A of Finance Act, 1994, rejecting claims for exemption under Notifications 11/2010-ST, 32/2010-ST, and 45/2010-ST as these applied only to already generated electricity services, not EPC contract prerequisites. Extended limitation period was rejected due to appellant's bona fide belief and prevailing confusion regarding works contract coverage. Penalties were set aside under Section 80 considering appellant's government undertaking status. Appeal partly allowed with service tax liability confirmed for normal period only. en-us Wed, 09 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 11 Apr 2025 08:40:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768657 CESTAT Chennai classified appellant's services as works contract service under Section 65A of Finance Act, 1994, rejecting claims for exemption under Notifications 11/2010-ST, 32/2010-ST, and 45/2010-ST as these applied only to already generated electricity services, not EPC contract prerequisites. Extended limitation period was rejected due to appellant's bona fide belief and prevailing confusion regarding works contract coverage. Penalties were set aside under Section 80 considering appellant's government undertaking status. Appeal partly allowed with service tax liability confirmed for normal period only. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 09 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768657