https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777911 CESTAT allowed the appeal, set aside the service-tax demand and penalties. The tribunal found the payments were for outsourced clearance and transport services, not commission-agent services; the impugned orders ignored transaction substance and violated natural justice. The authorities failed to specify the sub-clause of s.65(19) (Business Auxiliary Services) relied upon, rendering earlier demands unsustainable. For the period from 01.07.2012 the services fell within road-transport (negative list) and were not taxable as imported services on reverse charge. No adjudication was made on limitation. en-us Tue, 15 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 08 Sep 2025 13:37:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777911 CESTAT allowed the appeal, set aside the service-tax demand and penalties. The tribunal found the payments were for outsourced clearance and transport services, not commission-agent services; the impugned orders ignored transaction substance and violated natural justice. The authorities failed to specify the sub-clause of s.65(19) (Business Auxiliary Services) relied upon, rendering earlier demands unsustainable. For the period from 01.07.2012 the services fell within road-transport (negative list) and were not taxable as imported services on reverse charge. No adjudication was made on limitation. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 15 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777911