https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769273 CESTAT Kolkata allowed the appeal, setting aside service tax demands across multiple periods. For pre-July 2012 services, the tribunal held classification under 'management, maintenance or repair service' was incorrect, ruling services properly fell under 'Commercial or Industrial Construction Service' with applicable abatement. Post-July 2012, while accepting 'works contract service' classification, the tribunal found the adjudicating authority exceeded the show cause notice scope by challenging valuation methods not originally questioned. The appellant's adoption of Rule 2(A)(ii) valuation method was deemed correct given practical contract constraints. Extended limitation period was ruled inapplicable absent evidence of suppression with intent to evade tax. All penalties were set aside. en-us Mon, 11 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 23 Apr 2025 09:09:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769273 CESTAT Kolkata allowed the appeal, setting aside service tax demands across multiple periods. For pre-July 2012 services, the tribunal held classification under 'management, maintenance or repair service' was incorrect, ruling services properly fell under 'Commercial or Industrial Construction Service' with applicable abatement. Post-July 2012, while accepting 'works contract service' classification, the tribunal found the adjudicating authority exceeded the show cause notice scope by challenging valuation methods not originally questioned. The appellant's adoption of Rule 2(A)(ii) valuation method was deemed correct given practical contract constraints. Extended limitation period was ruled inapplicable absent evidence of suppression with intent to evade tax. All penalties were set aside. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 11 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769273